Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

INVERNESS BURGH ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

U.S.A. Canned Fish (Dollar Purchases)

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Minister of Food how many U.S. dollars have been expended on canned silver hake and similar fish purchased from the U.S.A. since January, 1946.

The Minister of Food (Mr. Strachey): There are no separate import figures for canned hake. About 2,300,000 dollars were spent on all private imports of canned fish from January. 1946. to the end of June, 1947.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this particular fish has been most unpopular with the people because much of it has been delivered in such a bad condition, and cannot he impress upon his staff the importance of conserving our valuable dollars and spending them more profitably?

Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir, the open general licence which covered this and other such imports has now been suspended.

Allocations

Mr. Lipson: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that the allocation

of various non-rationed foods to Cheltenham is based on a population of 62,000, whereas in the opinion of the Borough Food Committee the figure should be 75,000; if regard is had to the fact that the town is a popular inland health resort with a large number of unlicensed boarding establishments, has many residential schools and colleges and is a shopping centre for a big area of the county of Gloucester; and if he will take steps to bring supplies into a proper relationship to the population the town is expected to serve.

Mr. Strachey: Population figures prepared by the Registrar-General are used by my Department when adjusting allocations of manufacturing meat and fats for fish frying which are based on prewar trade. They are also supplied to primary distributors of unrationed foods which we do not allocate, to help them to do the same. The latest figure for the Metropolitan Borough of Cheltenham is 62,000. If the hon. Member has evidence that it is too low, I shall be glad to look into it.

Mr. Lipson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I sent him a report of the meeting of the local food committee, which is a very responsible body, in which they accepted the figure of 75,000? In view of the discrepancy between his figure and that, will he not hold an inquiry, or make representations to the local food committee to try to get the matter adjusted?

Mr. Strachey: Yes, certainly. I will listen to any evidence on the subject, but the Registrar-General's figures of population are, I think, the proper figures.

Mr. Lipson: But for what year? The figure has changed very much for a town like Cheltenham since the war.

Mr. Strachey: March, 1947.

Mr. Sparks: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that the percentage increase in sales of food and perishables in May, 1947, compared with May, 1946, is only 4.8 per cent. in the London suburban area as compared with an increase of 6.5 per cent. for the whole of Great Britain, and 12.0 per cent for Central London and the West End; and if he is satisfied that the London suburban area is receiving its share of increased supplies.

Mr. Strachey: Yes, Sir. I know of these figures of retail sales collected by the Bank of England. They relate only to money values and cover alcoholic drinks, tobacco and also restaurant meals, and are not a reliable indication of the amount of food reaching consumers in each area. I am satisfied that my Department is doing its utmost to ensure that food supplies are fairly distributed.

Mr. Sparks: Can my right hon. Friend explain the great difference between the 4.8 per cent. increase in the London suburban area and 12.0 per cent. in central London and the West End? There seems to be a great discrepancy between those figures; could he explain what it is?

Mr. Strachey: Not fully, I am afraid, without trespassing on the time of the House, but it is important to realise that these are in money values and, therefore, the West End figures are disproportionately high because of the large hotels, the expensive restaurants, and the like which are in that area.

Ministry's Staffs

Mr. Douglas Marshall: asked the Minister of Food how many people were employed in his Department in July, 1945, July, 1946, and the first week of July, 1947; and how many were employed (luring these periods of time it the Fish Division of his Department.

Mr. Strachey: The staff of the Ministry is divided between Headquarters, Area Offices and Divisional and Local Offices. There are no employees of the Fish Division in the third group. The total numbers of non-industrial Headquarters and Area staff on 1st July, in 1945. 1946 and 1947 were 10,331, 10,589 and 10,595, respectively, of which the Fish Division accounted for 271, 277 and 240. in each year.

Sir Waldron Smithers: Is it not a very fishy business?

Extra Cheese Ration

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Food what machinery is provided by his Department for the consideration of applications for the extra cheese ration by categories of workers who are not organised, or whose organisations are not affiliated to the T.U.C.

Mr. Strachey: No special machinery is provided for this purpose. Any such

applications are carefully considered by the appropriate branch of my Department.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: By that reply, does the right hon. Gentleman repudiate the statement made in a letter to me by his Parliamentary Secretary that these decisions were made by a special committee of the T.U.C.?

Mr. Strachey: Oh no, Sir. But the hon. Gentleman's Question relates specifically to classes of workers who, he suggests, are not organised, or adequately represented by the T.U.C. They make representations direct to the Minister.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In view of the answer given by the Parliamentary-Secretary, can the right hon. Gentleman say how those representations are made?

Mr. Strachey: Any individual, or group of individuals, can make an application or representation to the Minister.

Price Controls (B.B.C. Announcements)

Mr. Piratin: asked the Minister of Food whether he will consider asking the B.B.C. to make announcements with regard to the changes in price controls made by his Department.

Mr. Strachey: The B.B.C. usually give prominence to these announcements.

East Midland Food Controller (Resignation)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Food if his attention has been called to an anti-Semitic statement made by Brigadier Ford, East Midland Food Controller, to a party of German journalists paying an official visit to his region; and what action he is taking.

Mr. Hobson: asked the Minister of Food if his attention has been called to the official statement, made by Brigadier V. T. R. Ford, Regional Food Controller, at Nottingham, to the effect that black-market offences are committed chiefly by Jews; and what disciplinary action he proposes to take.

Mr. Strachey: A full and careful official inquiry has been made into this matter. The report of this inquiry has established that Brigadier Ford made certain statements to a group of German journalists


visiting this country, which could be construed as casting reflections on the Jewish race. He has assured those of my officers who conducted the inquiry that this was not his intention, and I accept this assurance. Nevertheless, it is essential that a divisional food officer, who is my chief representative in a region, should not only administer the affairs of his area impartially, but that his impartiality should be evident in everything that he does and says. I regret that the recent incident has shown a failure in this all-important requirement. Notwithstanding the satisfactory services which Brigadier Ford has rendered to the Ministry of Food in the past, I decided that I had to accept the recommendations of the official inquiry. Brigadier Ford has placed his resignation in my hands, and I have accepted it.

Mr. Driberg: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that very satisfactory reply, may I take it that steps will also be taken to remove from the minds of the German journalists concerned any impression they may have received that the heresies of Streicher and Goebbels have any official support in this country?

Mr. Strachey: I should hope that this careful inquiry into the matter, and the action following it, would have that effect.

Mr. Eden: I think the right hon. Gentleman referred to an inquiry which was instituted; are we to suppose that the findings of that inquiry, or part of them, will be made public? That would be desirable in view of the action taken.

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. I wish to make it clear that the matter was dealt with under proper Civil Service procedure, and the relevant and responsible officers of my Department went into the case most carefully, and reported to me.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: While it is obviously desirable that racial feeling should not be introduced into this country —and we are all agreed on that—is not the balance being thrown in the wrong direction? If it is the case that a certain race are concerned with the majority of these offences, is it wrong to say so?

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. If it could be proved, or any evidence were produced, that offences against food orders were committed by disproportionate numbers

of any one particular race, I do not think anyone could object to the facts being made public, but there is no evidence of that at all.

Mr. Nicholson: rose

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Skinnard.

Rye Biscuits (Bread Units)

Mr. Skinnard: asked the Minister of Food whether, in the case of persons advised on medical grounds to eat rye biscuits instead of bread, he will authorise local food offices to exchange bread units for points on production of an appropriate medical certificate.

Mr. Strachey: In very special cases, on medical certificate, points are given in exchange for bread units where my medical advisers agree that rye biscuits are essential. Because supplies are limited, I cannot leave the decision to local food offices.

Mr. Skinnard: But is there not machinery by which local food offices may put the applicant in consultation with the medical officers to the Ministry? There has been considerable difficulty owing to the fact that three points have to be surrendered for only seven ounces of these biscuits in cases where patients are strictly forbidden to eat bread, and would not food offices themselves appreciate some method by which they could get over the difficulty?

Mr. Strachey: If my hon. Friend has in mind the rate of exchange in these cases perhaps he will make representations to me on the matter.

Argentine Wheat and Maize (Purchase)

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Minister of Food if he will give details of the hitch in the purchase of 500,000 tons of wheat from the Argentine and say whether the contract was free alongside or f.o.b.; who was responsible for the hitch; and how much more the wheat will cost the British taxpayer.

Mr. Baldwin: asked the Minister of Food what difficulties he is experiencing in securing the fulfilment of contracts for the purchase of wheat and maize from the Argentine Government owing to any dispute over the interpretation of the contracts; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Strachey: There has been no hitch or dispute about any of the provisions of the Agreements.

Sir W. Smithers: rose

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Walter Fletcher.

Sir W. Smithers: On a point of Order, my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) had a similar Question, and I played the game by giving him an opportunity to get up first to ask a supplementary question. We were both cut out, and it was most unfair.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) resumed his seat, and, therefore, I called the next Question.

Sir W. Smithers: It is most unfair.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to say the hon. Gentleman must withdraw that remark immediately.

Sir W. Smithers: I withdraw it, Sir.

Later

Mr. Baldwin: On a point of Order. Is it assumed that the Minister has the permission of the House to bracket two Questions together without consent being given, and by that means prevent a supplementary question being asked?

Mr. Speaker: I did not notice that the two Questions were taken together; perhaps if the hon. Member wishes to ask a supplementary he would do so now.

Mr. Baldwin: I am much obliged. I did not ask the question earlier, because I gave way to the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers). I wish to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that a statement was attributed to Senor Miranda in regard to this contract, which shows a difference of opinion whether wheat was free alongside or f.o.b.?

Mr. Strachey: I have seen various statements in the Press on the subject, but I am glad to say they are without foundation.

Mr. Walter Fletcher: Does not the right hon. Gentleman's Ministry hold the view that we are going to be penalised to the extent of one pound a ton by a sharp practice reading of a contract, which is against the established custom of the trade?

Mr. Strachey: No, my Ministry does not hold that view.

Commander Marsden: May I ask whether these cargoes come in British ships?

Mr. Strachey: I must have notice of that question.

Rice and Cocoa (Brazil)

Mr. Walter Fletcher: asked the Minister of Food for what reason Brazil has withdrawn from the I.E.F.C.; and what consequences he anticipates from this withdrawal, particularly as regards, rice and cocoa.

Mr. Strachey: The Brazilian Government have made no statement on their reasons for withdrawing from the I.E.F.C. So long as all other member countries continue to abide by I.E.F.C. allocations the effects of Brazil's withdrawal should not be serious much though it is to be regretted.

Mr. Fletcher: Is the Minister aware that Brazilian rice is being dealt with in large quantities by other countries within the I.E.F.C., and that the effect of this withdrawal must be disastrous on the supply of rice, which is sold at a lower price in. Burma and Siam, as it will affect the distribution in Malaya and other Far Eastern countries?

Mr. Strachey: Brazilian rice amounts to about 10 per cent. of the rice entering into the world export trade. No doubt the matter is serious, but I would not have said it was disastrous.

Mr. Fletcher: In view of the fact that over 250,000 tons of Brazilian rice are being offered, would not the Minister agree that the effect of such a withdrawal must result in supplies from Burma and Siam not flowing into the I.E.F.C.?

Mr. Strachey: I could not admit that that would be the result, but any withdrawals from that international allocation machinery must have a bad effect.

East African Groundnut Scheme (Locusts)

Colonel Wheatley: asked the Minister of Food if the foliage of groundnut plants is liable to be attacked by locusts; and what precautions it is proposed to take to deal with this danger to the success of the East African Groundnut Scheme.

Mr. Strachey: The foliage of the groundnut plant is eaten by some varieties of locusts. Co-ordinated measures for dealing with outbreaks are in operation over the whole of East Africa. Further, the whole lay-out of cultivation in the new groundnut areas and the equipment available will make it possible to fight locusts in a way which could not be attempted where there are scattered holdings or relatively small farms.

Colonel Wheatley: Have any experiments been made in spraying the larvae of the locusts before they move up? Have aeroplanes been used for this purpose?

Mr. Strachey: I believe some experiments have been made in that way.

Whale Meat (Distribution)

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the high protein value of whalemeat, he will arrange to control the distribution of this meat and ensure that adequate supplies are sent to heavy industrial areas, such as the North-East.

Mr. Strachey: We are not likely to get enough whalemeat for some time to permit of controlled distribution. As I explained to the hon. Member on Wednesday last, we are encouraging imports, but the quantity available this year will be small.

Mr. Chetwynd: In view of the excellent food value of whalemeat, could my right hon. Friend see that it is distributed on the basis of "No work, no whalemeat"?

Mr. Strachey: At the present stage, when the matter is largely experimental, it is probably better to let whalemeat come in quite freely, and be sold on the open market.

Mr. Walkden: is not my right hon. Friend aware that we in the industrial North like a nice tasty steak? Is there any real reason why whalemeat should arrive at a port in the North and be brought to London, and be available only for people who seem to have a fairly good time in the West End of London? Why may we not have whalemeat in the industrial North?

Mr. Strachey: It is available in the industrial North, but the quantities, North or South, are very small this year. It is available in various parts of the country.

Calves (Slaughter)

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Food how many calves have been purchased by his Department for slaughter in the past 12 months; and the numbers in each of the past five years.

Mr. Strachey: As the reply contains a table of figures I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Hurd: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there has been a sharp increase in the slaughterings of calves, and, if so, is he taking any action to stop this premature slaughter, in view of the great need for increasing beef production?

Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. The figures show only a small increase.

Mr. Baldwin: Is the Minister aware that, from the figures in the first week of July for the last seven years, in the county of Herefordshire, the slaughtering of calves shows an increase of 50 per cent., while supplies of beef to collecting centres have decreased by 66 per cent.?

Mr. Strachey: The national increase is very much smaller than that.

Mr. Snadden: Is it not a fact that there has been a drastic reduction in home-killed beef supplies as against prewar, and is it not time that the right hon. Gentleman and the Minister of Agriculture got together and decided to change the balance of our livestock economy more in favour of home production?

Mr. Strachey: It is true that there is reduction in the home-killed meat supply, but that will be solved as and when we get adequate imports of feedingstuffs, which we are most anxious to do

The following is the reply:

The number of calves purchased for slaughter in the 12 months, July, 1946, to June, 1947, was 1,441,899. For the previous five years the figures are as follow:


July,1945, to June, 1946
1,374,060


July, 1944, to June, 1945
1,385,375


July, 1943, to June, 1944
1,302,190


July, 1942, to June, 1943
1,253,171


July, 1941, to June, 1942
1,004,384

BEER (IMPORTS)

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Minister of Food from which countries the 933,859 bulk barrels of beer imported


in 1945 and the 929,965 bulk barrels imported in 1946 came; and what proportion of these imports were from Eire.

Mr. Strachey: Of these imports all came from Eire, except 12 bulk barrels in 1945, which came from British India and America, and 234 bulk barrels in 1946, which came from Hong Kong, Australia. Sweden and America.

Major Legge-Bourke: Would the Minister give an assurance that the grain exported to Eire did not include barley, which subsequently came back to this country in the form of beer?

Mr. Strachey: Speaking from memory, we exported a certain amount of barley to Eire for the express purpose of getting it hack in beer.

Major Legge-Bourke: Does not the Minister consider that it would have been far more advantageous to British agriculture if the barley had been fed to our own livestock?

Mr. Strachey: It might be said if we took all our brewing barley to feed our livestock, then we should have no beer. That would be a very drastic thing to do.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAYS

Electric Trains (Sunday Fares)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister of Transport, whether he has made inquiries as to the extent to which electric trains on Sundays are filled; and whether he has reconsidered the introduction of cheap fares at all or certain seasons of the year on such electric lines as could carry additional passengers without providing additional trains.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): I assume the hon. Member has particularly in mind the suburban services of the Southern Railway. I have examined his suggestion sympathetically, but I am advised that, while some trains outward are not fully loaded, there is a concentration of returning passengers on Sunday evenings, and any additional traffic would generally need an increase in services to clear the passengers. It would be impracticable to apply a system of cheap fares to particular services only, according to the density of the traffic using them.

Mr. Keeling: Will the Minister send me the figures on which the first part of his reply is based. Also, does he think that the lack of enterprise shown, under Government control, in this matter, will be intensified or reduced under national ownership?

Mr. Barnes: I will certainly see if there is any further information which I can submit to the hon. Member.

Breakdown, Metropolitan Line

Mr. Hobson: asked the Minister of Transport (1) why no diversion of omnibuses was made by the L.P.T.B. on the evening of 2nd July to deal with passengers who were unable to alight at Preston Road and Northwick Park, Metropolitan line, because of a train breakdown;
(2) why passengers to Northwick Park and Preston Road were not informed at Wembley Park that trains scheduled to stop at these stations would not do so because of a breakdown on the evening of 2nd July.

Mr. Barnes: The breakdown occurred on the northbound local line from Wembley Park to Harrow. Arrangements were made for passengers for Preston Road and Northwick Park to proceed to Harrow on the fast line and return to those stations on the southbound local line. This was announced by loudspeaker and station staff at Wembley Park on the arrival of each northbound train. The southbound local line was also out of service for 22 minutes, during which time it was arranged for passengers to use the omnibus services from Harrow to Northwick Park. There is no existing omnibus service to Preston Road and the train service resumed before a special omnibus service could be improvised.

Mr. Hobson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he has been misinformed, and that for three-quarters of an hour no information was given to any passenger at Wembley Park about the fact that trains were not stopping, and, further, that no attempts were made to put on any buses at Harrow, despite the fact that there are inspectors stationed at Wembley Park for the railway and at Harrow for the buses? Will my right hon. Friend see that the Transport Board allow them to use their own initiative without first referring to headquarters?

Mr. Barnes: I am not aware that I have been misinformed. I will certainly check up the further statements of my hon. Friend.

Lost Property (Sales)

Mr. Sparks: asked the Minister of Transport if he will give details of property, goods and commodities lost or found on the railways during 1946 by reason of inadequate packing and insufficient address, and the proceeds of salvage sales for that year, giving the information as far as possible upon a departmental basis.

Mr. Barnes: I regret that information in the form desired by my hon. Friend is not available. The total receipts realised in 1946 from the sale of salvage were £286,786, of which £226,926 was for the goods departments and £59,860 for the passenger departments.

Dining Car, Euston-North Wales

Mr. Emrys Roberts: asked the Minister of Transport the reason why, since June last, there is no restaurant car on the 1.30 p.m. train from Euston to North Wales; and whether he will make representations to the railway company to restore this facility in view of its importance to the tourist traffic.

Mr. Barnes: To provide a dining car would reduce the accommodation which is already heavily loaded. The train leaves at a rather late hour for lunch and passengers for North Wales have half an hour to wait at Crewe during which they can obtain refreshments. The 11.15 a.m. from Euston direct to North Wales has a dining car.

Mr. Roberts: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this train is invariably half an hour late at Crewe, that there always used to be a dining car on it, and that L.M.S. services to North Wales continue progressively to deteriorate?

Central London Line (Services)

Mr. Piratin: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the increased congestion on the Central London Line since its extension East to Leyton and West to Greenford; what additional trains have been put on this line; and what further steps he is taking

to relieve the congestion, particularly in the morning and evening rush hours.

Mr. Barnes: Yes, Sir. Additional trains are now being run, seven in the morning peak and three in the evening peak. The service cannot at present be improved further, but by about the end of the year, when certain stages of the works now in hand are completed, it will be possible materially to increase peak capacity.

Mr. Piratin: Can the Minister explain why there are only three trains in the evenings and seven in the mornings, and can he say how soon further steps will be taken to relieve this congestion which I personally get from both ends, as my constituency is at one end of the line and my home at the other?

Season Tickets (Students and Trainees)

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Transport whether the two-thirds season ticket concession for those between 16 and 18 years of age will be extended to all students and trainees over the age of 18 years attending training establishments.

Mr. Barnes: No, Sir. With the extension recently announced, the scope of the concession of reduced season ticket rates is already very wide and no further extension can be contemplated.

Main Line Companies (Earnings)

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Minister of Transport the estimated deficiency on the amounts payable under the Railway Control Agreement in respect of the earnings of the main line companies for 1947 and 1948, respectively; and what action he proposes to take to meet it.

Mr. Barnes: It is estimated that in 1947 the pooled net revenues of the main line railway companies will fall short of the fixed annual sums payable to them under the Railway Control Agreement by some £37 million. The Control Agreement will be terminated at the end of this year, when the railways will pass to the British Transport Commission, but an estimate on a similar basis for 1948 indicates a deficiency of about £28 million. Neither estimate takes account of any additional cost which


would be incurred should effect be given to the recent recommendation of the Court of Inquiry into wages and hours of work of railwaymen. With regard to the last part of the Question, I expect to be in a position to make a statement before the Recess.

Mr. Davies: Before my right hon. Friend makes a statement regarding any action which he proposes to take, will he take into full consideration the desirability of subsidising the railways at the present time, in view of the incidence of an increase in railway charges on the cost of production?

Mr. Barnes: All relevant considerations will he taken into account, but that will not avoid the necessity of making a decision to meet the existing circumstances.

Mr. Bowles: May I ask my right hon. Friend how far the Railway Rates Tribunal, or whatever its other name is now, has been wrong in its estimates?

Mr. Barnes: The Consultative Committee, which functions in the place of the Railway Rates Tribunal, submitted a report to me recently on this matter, and estimates, figures and information have not been accurate. I am not so very much concerned with what has happened in the past; I am proceeding on the information which I have at my disposal at the moment.

Wagons (Manufacture and Repair)

Mr. Piratin: asked the Minister of Transport what steps he is taking to ensure the speed-up of the manufacture and repair of railway goods wagons.

Mr. Barnes: Production and repair of railway wagons are proceeding as rapidly as the available supply of materials allows.

Mr. Sparks: Could my right hon. Friend say whether there is any shortage of skilled staff in this particular work, or is the shortage due mainly to materials?

Mr. Barnes: It is due mainly to materials.

Mr. Piratin: As the right hon. Gentleman now puts the main problem on the question of supplies, is he satisfied, and

can he satisfy the House that, in turn, the Minister of Supply is providing him with all the necessary supplies he needs, for he will recall that one of the main reasons for the fuel crisis was a transport breakdown, and we cannot afford to have such a breakdown again? May I have a reply?

Major Bruce: Would my right hon. Friend say to what extent he is utilising the facilities available to him from the First Lord of the Admiralty?

Mr. Barnes: I assume that my hon. and gallant Friend is referring to the naval dockyards?

Major Bruce: Yes.

Mr. Barnes: They are assisting from time to time in this work, but mainly with regard to locomotives.

Wages Award (Cost)

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Minister of Transport the estimated cost of the award of the court of inquiry into the claims of the employees of the railway companies; and what action he proposes to take in regard thereto.

Mr. Barnes: The railway companies estimate that the cost in 1947 and 1948, including the consequential increase in the maintenance charge provided for in the Railway Control Agreement, would be about £22 million and £37 million respectively. In regard to the second part of the Question, a decision is in course of being taken, and an announcement will he made immediately.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

Carriers' Licences

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister ot Transport how many applications for "A" and "B" licences respectively have been made in each of the last six quarter-years for which figures are available; in how many cases was the grant of such licences opposed by a railway company: and how many licences were granted.

Mr. Barnes: I regret that quarterly figures are not available. The most recent annual figures are for the year ended 30th September, 1938, and I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement giving some relevant statistical information in respect of that year.

Following is the statement:

The figures of applications for "A" and "B" currency carriers' licences and variations for the year ended 30th September, 1938, are as follow:


—
Total applications (all traffic areas)
Total granted


"A" currency licences and variations
8,385
6,783


"B" currency licences and variations
39,657
36,855

Figures in respect of applications objected to by the railway companies are not available for the North Western and East Midland Traffic Areas. The figures for the remaining ten traffic areas for the year ended 30th September, 1938, are as follow:


—
Applications (10 traffic areas).
Granted.
Objected to by railway companies.


'A' currency licences and variations
6,289
5,157
2,007


"B" currency licences and variations.
30,658
28,519
3,864

Motor Cars (Spare Parts)

Mr. Edelman: asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the existing shortage of spare parts for motor cars, he will institute a system of priority under the direction of the certifying officer of his Department for the allocation of these parts.

Mr. Barnes: No, Sir. I am convinced there is not sufficient justification for reimposing such a priority scheme.

Mr. Edelman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that while there is a large black market in motor car spares, large numbers of deserving people cannot get their cars on to the road through lack of these spares? Will he see that some attention is given to their needs?

Mr. Barnes: I have certainly examined carefully the problem of re-imposing a

priority scheme, but I am satisfied that it would be a move in the wrong direction.

Pedestrian Crossings (Coloured Surfaces)

Mr. Symonds: asked the Minister of Transport (1) if, in the interests of road safety, he will authorise the painting of pedestrian crossings with amber zig-zag lines;
(2) if he has now completed his review of the results of experiments using coloured surfaces for pedestrian crossings; and what conclusions he has come to.

Mr. Barnes: The use of coloured surfaces for pedestrian crossings is being investigated by the Road Research Board and I propose to await the results of their work before reaching a conclusion.

Mr. Symonds: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that motorists are at present paying sufficient respect to pedestrian crossings, and, if not, will he speed up some measures to ensure such respect?

Mr. Barnes: No, I am not satisfied that motorists are paying sufficient attention to pedestrian crossings. We are certainly trying to expedite this particular examination.

Mr. Symonds: Is it merely a matter of shortage of paint?

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: Will the Minister say whether, under this scheme, pedestrians are expected to take a zig-zag course?

Mr. W. Fletcher: Would the Minister see that paint of a permanent character is used so that the markings will be "forever amber"?

Concrete Ramps, Crawley By-Pass

Mr. Touche: asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that a number of good concrete ramps which were made by the Army by the Crawley by-pass are now being broken up; if he will state the reason for this action in view of the fact that such ramps provided an excellent parking place for lorries engaged upon night transport; and why labour is now being employed on this unnecessary work.

Mr. Barnes: The ramps on the Crawley by-pass formed the foundations of buildings erected during the war. They lie


across cycle tracks and footpaths which it is now necessary to reinstate on grounds of public safety One of the ramps is being retained as a car park, but the others are unsuitable for this purpose because of their location and level.

Mr. Touche: Does the Minister regard this as essential work?

Mr. Barnes: I cannot say whether: I comes under the problem of priority, but I certainly think that the needs of cyclists and pedestrians should always be considered by the Ministry of Transport.

Bath Road, Cranford (Speed Limit)

Mr. W. R. Williams: asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the dangerous traffic conditions on the Bath Road through Cranford village, he will give further sympathetic consideration to submissions made by the Middlesex County Council at the request of the Heston and Isleworth Borough Council that a 30-mile speed limit be imposed on the section of the Bath Road between Cranford Bridge and the Great West Road junction.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. C. R. Strauss): The accident record shows that speed has not been a substantial factor in the occurrence of accidents at this spot, and I do not think that the imposition of a speed limit is necessary. Work on the widening of the carriageway at the junction with Berkeley Avenue, to which my right hon. Friend referred in his reply to my hon. Friend on 26th February, will start in the next few weeks.

Mr. Williams: Is my hon. Friend aware that that is the sort of answer he gave me about 12 months ago? It was then regarded as quite unsatisfactory and in view of the anxiety felt by parents of children attending the nearby junior and infants' school, is he prepared to approve a conference held on the spot between officials of his Department and the local council officials in order to determine the best scheme whereby this dangerous element can be removed?

Mr. Strauss: This matter has been gone into very carefully and we are satisfied that the danger arises from the narrowness of the carriageway at certain spots. We are taking immediate steps to rectify

that danger as far as possible. It there is any further information which my hon. Friend can give me, I am prepared to consider it.

Mrs. Leah Manning: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that if the carriageway is narrow we cannot wait until it is widened? The obvious thing is to use all immediate remedies available, and will the Minister do that?

Mr. Williams: is the Minister prepared to consider the matter further because, unless he is, I must give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment?

Mr. Strauss: The work proposed is to start within a few weeks. I think we might wait and see what happens.

Mr. Keeling: Will the Minister say whether his objection to a speed limit here is in any way due to the fact that the Bath road was built as an alternative to the old Bath road and was, therefore, intended as a road where there should be no speed limit?

Sign-posting, London Area

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will review the sign-posting of roads out of London, and especially those south of the river, in view of its inadequacy and the trouble caused to motorists resulting therefrom.

Mr. Barnes: Sign-posting in London will be improved when supplies are available. In a circular to highway authorities on 1st March, 1946, I asked them to consider the erection of further direction signs of the type recommended by the Departmental Committee on Traffic Signs.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Will the Minister bear in mind that speed is of the essence of this matter and that under present arrangements there is considerable wastage of petrol and unnecessary wear and tear of tyres?

Mr. Barnes: On a previous Question, evidently speed was regarded as advantageous. I will take notice of my hon. Friend's statement.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: Can the Minister say when he expects these supplies to be available?

Mr. Barnes: They are intermittent.

Mr. Anthony Nutting: Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that when these designs are introduced they will read, "Turn Right. It's the only way out"?

Road Widening, Norwich (Wall)

Mr. Medlicott: asked the Minister of Transport how many man-hours of labour have been used on the building of a boundary wall along the Yarmouth road west of Thunder Lane in Thorpe St. Andrew, Norwich; how soon the wall will be finished; and what has been the reason for the construction of such a wall at this particular juncture.

Mr. Barnes: Two thousand and thirty six man-hours have so far been spent on the construction of the wall, and 160 will be required for completion. It is expected to finish the work by the end of this month. The wall replaces one which collapsed because of vibration caused by traffic. The opportunity was taken to widen the road and provide a new footpath at this danger spot and as part of the terms of land acquisition the new wall was constructed in the style of the original.

Buses (Standing Passengers)

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: asked the Minister of Transport whether his regulations entitle the conductor of an omnibus plying for hire to refuse admission to a passenger when the omnibus is not full; and whether the conductor is sole judge of whether the omnibus is full or not.

Mr. Barnes: This is a matter normally covered by operators' instructions to their staffs. The regulation allows carriage of a limited number of standing passengers at certain times, but it is permissive and it is for operators to decide how far they will take advantage of it.

Colonel Hutchison: Is the Minister aware that in their anxiety not to carry one passenger over the odds, buses frequently run with an incomplete load thereby penalising the long suffering public and wasting money; and cannot he devise some system whereby it can be shown effectively to those waiting to get on a bus whether the top is full or not?

Mr. Barnes: I should hope that this is a very rare and exceptional case. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] My reply shows that we have not powers at the present

moment, but I certainly feel that the hon. and gallant Member has raised a rather important point.

Mr. Sparks: Will my right hon. Friend look into this matter again because there is a great deal of substance in the Question? Frequently people are prevented from boarding buses on the plea that the bus is full, when as a matter of fact the bus is not full, either upstairs or down, but one cannot stand and argue.

Mr. Barnes: Again I would ask hon. Members to look at my reply which indicates the powers I have in the matter. That does not mean that I do not accept the views of hon. Members: I do.

Mr. E. Fletcher: In view of the increasing length of queues of people waiting for admission to omnibuses, will my right hon. Friend consider so amending the regulations to make it clear that members of the public have a right to board an omnibus until the permitted number of standing passengers has been reached?

Mr. Barnes: I can only repeat what I have stated already. I note the interest which the House takes in this matter, and it is my very strong desire to support in every possible way.

Reconditioned Motor Cars (Ex-Service Men)

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: asked the Minister of Transport how many disabled ex-Service men are on the waiting list for reconditioned ex-Service motor cars.

Mr. Barnes: Nine hundred and sixty-six, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPPING

Radio Apparatus Consignment (Loading)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Transport why, on Saturday, 7th June, 20 cases' of radio apparatus consigned for shipment by s.s. "Johilla" were not permitted to be loaded on the said ship at Royal Albert Docks, London, although space had been allocated to them in the ship; and what action is being taken by his Department to prevent a recurrence of such happenings.

Mr. Barnes: I have no information, and I cannot find that the shipping line


concerned or the Port of London Authority have any knowledge of the incident.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If I furnish the right hon. Gentleman with that information, which his colleague the President of the Board of Trade apparently thought that the right hon. Gentleman had, will he look into it?

Mr. Barnes: Certainly.

British Owned Ships (Registration)

Mr. Awbery: asked the Minister of Transport if a vessel now berthed in one of the South Wales ports, particulars of which have been sent to him, is owned by British citizens or persons domiciled in Great Britain; why the vessel is registered in Panama; and if he will take action, by legislation or otherwise, to prevent British shipowners registering their vessels under another flag thereby evading certain obligations which are required from ships registered in Great Britain.

Mr. Barnes: The owners of the ship referred to do not come within any of the descriptions set out in Section 1 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, of persons qualified to own a British ship and consequently would not be entitled to register the ship as a British ship. With regard to the last part of the Question, the existing law requires every British ship, that is to say a ship owned by persons qualified to own a British ship, to be registered as such and provides appropriate penalties for failure to do so.

EUROPEAN CENTRAL INLAND TRANSPORT ORGANISATION

Mr. Douglas Jay: asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the importance of transport in the economic recovery of Europe, the European Central Inland Transport Organisation will he kept in being until its activities are taken over by the Economic Commission for Europe.

Mr. Barnes: As I informed my hon. Friend on 12th May last, the position of this organisation was precarious owing to the failure of certain countries, chiefly the U.S.S.R., to pay in full their outstanding contributions. Representations to these countries did not produce sufficient funds

to enable the staff of the organisation to be paid beyond 30th June with the unfortunate result that it is now in process of dissolution and indeed some of the staff are not receiving payments due to them. I much regret the situation that has arisen, as the activities of this transport organisation were making an exceedingly valuable contribution to the rehabilitation of Europe. Moreover, this precipitate dissolution means that the desire of both the Economic and Social Council and the Economic Commission for Europe that the essential work of this organisation should be continued until it can be taken over by the Commission cannot now be carried out.

L.P.T.B. (IMPROVED WORKING CONDITIONS)

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Minister of Transport the cost of the recent improvements in working conditions granted certain employees of the L.P.T.B.

Mr. Barnes: The London Passenger Transport Board estimate that the cost, in 1947 and 1948, of giving effect to the agreements which operated from 25th June, 1947, will be about £775,000 and £1,410,000, respectively.

CANNED VEGETABLES (RESEARCH)

Mr. Janner: asked the Lord President of the Council what is the latest advice of the Medical Research Council and the Department of Scientific and industrial Research on the danger of tinned vegetables; and whether he will make a statement on this matter.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I am advised that this is not a matter for research at the present time, the relevant facts being already well known. The risk is practically confined to foods preserved without due regard to the precautions officially recommended.

Mr. Janner: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the evidence given by a pathologist at a recent inquest that a statement had been made by the Ministry of Health that these vegetables might be terribly dangerous, and will he see to it that it is generally made known that that statement, if made, was not correct?

Mr. Morrison: On the other hand, there was a statement which appeared in the Press of 17th July, issued on the authority of the Ministry of Health and stating that the risk with commercially canned vegetables is non-existent, as proper canning machinery and a sufficiently high steam pressure are employed to ensure complete sterility, but that there may be some slight risk with home bottled or canned vegetables.

Mr. Janner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the information given in his reply to the supplementary question will be very assuring to the general public?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Afforestation (Land Allocation)

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is satisfied that the fullest efforts are being made to use all available home-grown timber which is suitable for housing and furniture making, with a view to increasing the timber supplies immediately and enabling this woodland to he replanted in accordance with the re-afforestation schemes of the Forestry Commission, in Freference to taking over fresh agricultural land.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): Yes, Sir.

Mr. Cooper: Is my right hon. Friend aware that mature timber in parts of North Devon, mainly ash, oak and beech, is available or could he made available for the furniture trade and that, if it was taken, it would enable land to be used for replanting trees, instead of taking fresh agricultural land?

Mr. Williams: If my hon. Friend will, give me any specific cases and the exact areas where this happens to be the case, I can assure him that ready use will be made of it.

Mr. Cooper: asked the Minister of Agriculture what steps are taken before land is planted with trees under Forestry Commission schemes to ensure that the land is suitable for growing trees; that no other land in the district is more suitable; and that land of greater value for agriculture is not being absorbed.

Mr. T. Williams: Only land placed at their disposal by the Minister of Agricul-

ture or by the Secretary of State for Scotland can be used by the Forestry Commissioners for afforestation purposes. Before each acquisition, the suitability of the land for growing trees is determined by technically qualified officers, and agreement is reached between the Agricultural Department and the Forestry Commission as to the land to be used for afforestation purposes. Land of greater value to agriculture is not allocated for afforestation.

Mr. Cooper: Does my right hon. Friend realise that agricultural land which has proved unsuitable for growing trees over a number of years has been allocated to the planting of trees, again in North Devon, and will he look into the case and see if there is any other land which is more suitable for afforestation?

Mr. Williams: I am not aware that there is any land suitable for afforestation which has been reserved for agriculture, unless there is a real agricultural use for that particular land, but I will gladly look into any case which any hon. Member brings to my notice.

Warble Fly

Colonel Clarke: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware of the damage to the production of milk, beef and hides by the warble fly; and if he will now consider making an order under the Diseases of Animals Acts for compulsory dressing of all cattle, whereby the numbers of warble flies might be substantially reduced.

Mr. T. Williams: I am aware of the damage caused by the warble fly, but, as the dressing of cattle before March to destroy warbles would not be effective, the question of making an order does not arise at the moment.

Colonel Clarke: In view of the fact that sheep are now only to be dipped once a year, would not the police have time to see that such an order was properly carried out?

Mr. Williams: I understand that all warble flies that emerge between mid-March and the end of June are likely to give rise to another generation. That is why I feel that, at this moment, at all events, there is no point in making such an order.

Mr. John Lewis: Would it not be advisable to avoid compulsion, in the absence of adequate farm labour necessary for the application of the derris wash at the appropriate time; and is not my right hon. Friend aware that he might overcome this problem by prevailing upon the Minister of Food to pay different prices for designated hides according to the condition in which they arrive at his depots?

Mr. Williams: I think that that question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food.

Mr. Baldwin: In view of the importance of this matter, and the great loss to the leather industry in this country, particulars of which are readily available from the Leather Merchants' Association, will the right hon. Gentleman look into this question again, because the trouble in the compulsory dressing of cattle is no more than in the compulsory dipping of sheep?

Mr. Williams: As I have already explained, treatment at this moment would be ineffective. It is only between mid-March and the end of June that treatment would be effective.

Five-furrow Ploughs

Mr. Hollis: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will authorise an increased release of five-furrow ploughs to the home market.

Mr. T. Williams: In order to meet the needs of home farmers, arrangements have recently been made for the diversion to the home market of a substantial proportion of the five-furrow ploughs which have been specially built to meet export orders.

Mr. Hollis: Is the Minister aware that a substantial proporton of these ploughs are, in point of fact, of a type which is unsuitable for use on English soil?

Mr. Williams: Yes, Sir, but there happens to be only one firm in this country which makes them.

Wool (Average Price)

Mr. John Morrison: asked the Minister of Agriculture what is the average price paid to the English farmer for his wool; and at what average price is this passed on to the manufacturer.

Mr. T. Williams: For the season ended 30th April, 1047, the average price paid for wool to the British farmers was 17.44 pence per pound. The average price to manufacturers was 17.184 pence per pound.

Grass Seed

Mr. Crawley: asked the Minister of Agriculture what are the total requirements of grass seed for England including Wales and Scotland, respectively, in a normal year; and what quantity has so far been imported during 1947.

Mr. T. Williams: No separate figures are available of the annual requirements of the various descriptions of grass seeds in England and Wales and Scotland, respectively. For the United Kingdom as a whole, it is estimated that between 30,000 and 35,000 tons of seed of the principal agricultural grasses are needed for sowing throughout the season, based on current cropping programmes. The quantity of these seeds imported during the first six months of 1047 was 1600 tons.

Mr. Crawley: is the Minister aware that in my constituency about 3,000 acres of grass seed, sown at the request of his Ministry, is no longer needed for this purpose, and will he ensure, if he still wishes seed to be grown for export, that an assurance is given to farmers that their seed will find a market?

Mr. Williams: It may very well happen that, at one and the same time, there is a surplus of one kind of seed and a shortage of another, which can only be obtained by imports. I can assure my hon. Friend that we do not encourage people to grow seeds unless we feel that there is going to be a market available for them.

Animal Health Division (Veterinary Surgeons)

Mr. Somerville Hastings: asked the Minister of Agriculture how many appointments for veterinary surgeons in his Animal Health Division are unfilled; and what salaries are being offered for these posts.

Mr. T. Williams: There are about 140 vacancies on the permanent staff, of which 75 are at present filled by temporary officers. These vacancies are in the basic grade for which the salary scale in the country is £520 for men of 25


rising to a maximum of £960. The salary is slightly higher for veterinary surgeons stationed in London and certain provincial cities.

Mr. Hastings: Does my right hon. Friend regard this basic salary as sufficient considering the long training and the responsibility of the work involved?

Mr. Williams: My advisers are satisfied that these salary scales are regarded as satisfactory when compared with those of other professional and scientific civil servants.

Dr. Stephen Taylor: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in some ways, it is more important to be a "vet." than to be a doctor because the "vet's" patients cannot tell him what is wrong with them; and, further, will he not have a look at these salary scales because they compare unfavourably with those for doctors?

Mr. Williams: I certainly do not disagree with the first part of my hon. Friend's question.

Drainage Works

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Minister of Agriculture by what date he aims to have the work completed of restoring the existing drainage system damaged by the floods; and if he is satisfied that the work will be done in time to ensure that there is no flooding caused by the normal rainfall and tides before that date.

Mr. T. Williams: The drainage authorities concerned feel confident that they will be able to complete the necessary rehabilitation works before next winter, and, in some cases, to incorporate a measure of improvement to their embankments. Given normal weather and tidal conditions, flooding should not occur before the works are completed.

Major Legge-Bourke: Could the right non. Gentleman give an approximate date, as people do not know when the work is going to begin?

Mr. Williams: It is quite impossible to give a date, that being determined by numerous local factors.

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Minister of Agriculture how many men

are employed in the North Level Internal Board's area and in the Great Ouse Catchment Board's area on restoration of the existing system of drainage; how many have been asked for by the respective boards; how many additional men will be made available for long-term schemes in the Welland and Great Ouse Catchment Board's areas; and when work will start on such schemes.

Mr. T. Williams: Over 200 men are now employed by the North Level Commissioners, and some 500 by the River Great Ouse Catchment Board on restoration and improvement work. Prisoner-of-war labour has been made available as required. The availability of supervisors and of local accommodation will determine the rate at which further labour, if it should prove necessary, can be absorbed. All practicable steps are being taken to help the Boards. As regards the last part of the Question, I assume that the hon. and gallant Member has in mind the major improvement scheme of the River Welland Catchment Board, and the revised flood protection scheme of the Great Ouse Catchment Board. The former scheme was approved by my Department in November last, but detailed information about the latter scheme has yet to be submitted. Both Boards have urgent rehabilitation works in hand which must be completed without delay. However, the Welland Board will start work on the outfall end of their major schemes shortly. Before work can begin on the other scheme a number of preliminaries, including the acquisition of land, must be completed.

Major Legge-Bourke: While I appreciate the length of the answer, could the right hon. Gentleman answer in detail, the third part of the Question, as to how many men have been asked for by the respective boards?

Mr. Williams: Not without notice.

CROWN HOUSES, KEW

Mr. Sparks: asked the Minister of Agriculture why the Crown properties, 17 and 19, The Green, Kew, Surrey, have been unoccupied for 16 years although these houses are capable of being made fit for habitation; and, in view of the


serious housing problem which exists in the neighbourhood, if he will take steps to arrange that they be placed at the disposal of the local authority to rehouse homeless families from their waiting list.

Mr. Williams: These houses, which are 200 years old, were regarded before the war as fit only for demolition, and it was proposed to rebuild them (retaining their facade on account of its architectural interest) as an official residence for the Assistant Director of the Royal Botanic Gardens. This proposal had to be postponed on the outbreak of war, but it is intended to proceed with the work as soon as conditions permit. I am advised that the present state of the buildings is such that they could not be adapted for housing purposes.

Mr. Sparks: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a local builder is quite prepared to adapt these houses at reasonable cost and make them fit for habitation; and would he look into this matter again, and offer them to the Home Secretary to see if it is possible for him to make use of them in connection with the housing of N.F.S. firemen for whom he has had great difficulty in finding accommodation?

Mr. Williams: I understand that various proposals have been made about these two cottages over the past 17 years, but none of the proposals were accepted, and after 17 years, I feel that deterioration will now have reached such a point that it would be folly to make a payment to make them habitable.

Mr. Sparks: Does the Minister now say that no steps will be taken, if for no other reason than that of historical sentiment, to see that these fine old Georgian houses are preserved?

Mr. Williams: Yes. I hope that, if conditions permit, work will proceed on them. We hope not only to retain the facade, but to make them available for the Assistant Director of the Royal Botanical Gardens.

DOMINION FOOD GIFTS

Mr. Keeling: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what extra quantities of food have been brought to the United Kingdom from Canada, Australia and New Zealand through voluntary individual surrenders of

food coupons for the benefit of this country.

The Under-Secretary of State for India (Mr. Arthur Henderson): I have been asked to reply. As the answer is rather long, and contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Keeling: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman noticed the cables in "The Times" to the effect that people in the Dominions are feeling aggrieved that they have drawn in their belts without any apparent advantage to ours, and will he arrange for any figures he has to be published in the Dominions, both in the Press and through the B.B.C., if possible?

Mr. Henderson: I will consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

Following is the answer:

Reference has been made in this matter by telegram to the Governments of Australia, New Zealand and Canada. The Australian Government have stated that it is not possible to relate exactly over a period what increased shipments have been made as a result of voluntary surrendering of food coupons; but that, as the only markets for the disposal of meat and butter are domestic consumption in Australia against coupons and shipments to the United Kingdom Ministry of Food, it is obvious that any saving made in domestic consumption by the surrender of coupons will, to that extent, increase the supply of meat and butter available for shipment to the United Kingdom. This is also the position in the case of New Zealand. The following figures show the approximate amounts represented by the voluntary surrendering of coupons:

Australia (from May, 1947)—
Meat—3 million lb.
Butter—54,000 lb.
New Zealand (from April, 1946)—
Meat—4¾ million lb.
Butter—196,000 lb.

In the case of Canada, meat is the only food affected, as Canada did not export other rationed foods to the United Kingdom. During the period of meat rationing in Canada (September, 1945, to March, 1947) the amount of meat exported to the United Kingdom, as a result of the surrender of coupons, was, approximately, 3 million lb.

NEWFOUNDLAND FISH (MARKETS)

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what action he is taking to find an alternative market for fresh or frozen fish from Newfoundland, which, during the war, formed part of the United Kingdom's supply of fish.

Mr. A. Henderson: Since it proved necessary to inform the Newfoundland Government that the dollar position precludes the United. Kingdom from purchasing frozen fish from Newfoundland during 1947, the Commission of Government are taking all possible steps to find alternative markets for this fish.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

Surplus Stores and War Equipment (Sales)

Mr. G. Cooper: asked the Minister of Supply what conditions apply to the sale of Government stores and war equipment to ensure the protection of the public from profiteering on the part of dealers and retailers.

The Minister of Supply (Mr. John Wilmot): Where necessary, prices are controlled, either by agreement with the trade, by Statutory Order, or, as in the case of machine tools, by my Department conducting the sale at a fixed price for each article.

Mr. Cooper: Does my right hon. Friend realise that in the case of officers' field boots, his Department disposed of these at 25s. a pair, and that their price in the shops is 65s., and that, in the case of deck shoes, his Department are getting 7s. 6d. a pair, whereas the retail price to the public is 22s. 6d. a pair? Does he consider it justified that the price should go up three times before the public get them?

Mr. Wilmot: The price of second-hand clothing to the consumer is fixed after consultation with my right hon. and learned Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

Mr. Cooper: Does my right hon. Friend consider that a price increase of 300 per cent. is a fair margin?

Mr. Wilmot: I should have to look at those margins.

Ordnance Factory, Irvine

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Minister of Supply what civilian products are now being manufactured at the Royal Ordnance factory, Irvine; how many men and women are employed there; and whether it is contemplated increasing production and employment.

Mr. Wilmot: This factory is producing sulphuric acid for industrial purposes and is recovering steel, copper, brass and ammonium nitrate for civilian use from I he breaking down of ammunition. Four hundred and five men and 37 women are employed, and I hope, for the present, to maintain employment at about this level.

Specialised Engineering Equipment

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Supply what steps he is taking to secure the manufacture in this country of specialised engineering equipment, hitherto imported.

Mr. Wilmot: By such means as helping manufacturers to obtain raw materials, to erect buildings, to purchase manufacturing rights and to raise capital, and by putting at their disposal the general services of the Department and its advisory bodies.

Mr. Walkden: As my right hon. Friend appears to be the chairman of a committee which is producing, so we are told, machinery for the coalmines, can he give us any further statement than that which he has given as to the extent of production?

Mr. Wilmot: I think that my hon. Friend had better put that question down.

Mr. Walkden: I will.

Motor Manufacturing Industry (Report)

Mr. Edelman: asked the Minister of Supply whether he will now publish the Report recently submitted to him by the National Advisory Council for the Motor Manufacturing Industry.

Mr. Wilmot: Yes, Sir. I will include the substance of it in the report of the work of the National Advisory Council for the Motor Manufacturing Industry, which I will publish shortly.

Propeller Turbine Engines (Cancelled Contract)

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Minister of Supply why the contract allotted to Roy Fedden, Limited, for the development of a low-powered airscrew-driving turbine has been cancelled.

Mr. Wilmot: In the interests of economy it was necessary to review the propeller turbine engines within this power range now under development and it was decided that the continued support of this project was not justified. I welcome this opportunity of stating in public, as I have already assured Sir Roy Fedden personally, that the decision does not, of course, imply any reflection on the ability of the company.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the jet turbine business is a great source of income to this country from hard currency areas and, when this particular turbine was so very near completion, why should he be so shortsighted as to cancel the contract?

Mr. Wilmot: In view of the tact that other turbines were in a more advanced state of development, it was not considered justified to continue incurring expenditure on this one.

Air-Commodore Harvey: is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is said that this turbine would have been completed and running within three months? Why cancel it then?

Mr. Wilmot: That is in conf with the advice which I received.

Mr. Lipson: May I ask the right non Gentleman why it was necessary to cancel this contract when he has also made it impossible for this factory to produce anything else? Will he see that Sir Roy Fedden and the group of skilled workers around him will be used in the national interest?

Mr. Wilmot: The factory was used on this contract purely on research and development work. The question of the use of the factory for production is one for my right hon. and learned Friend the President of the Board of Trade to decide.

BURMA (ASSASSINATIONS)

Mr. Eden: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether the Government have any statement to make on the grave and tragic events which have lust taken place in Burma.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I have nothing to add to the very full reports that have appeared in the Press. We are in the closest touch with the Governor, and any information received from him will at once be made available.
The House will join with me in deploring this brutal outrage which has met with universal condemnation. My colleagues and I who had long talks with U Aung San and Thakin Mya had formed a high opinion of them both. They were, in our view, men of great intelligence, courage and public spirit who could ill he spared in Burma in these critical days. U Aung San had shown high qualities of leadership. The underlying causes of the plot are not yet clear. Everything is being done to trace the culprits and to fix responsibility.
The House will have seen that a new Executive Council has now been formed by Thakin Nu, the President of the Constituent Assembly, who has, as the House is aware, very recently visited this country as the head of the Burma Goodwill Mission. The swift formation of a new Council is the best guarantee of the early restoration of normal conditions in Burma. The shocking events that have taken place will in no way deflect His Majesty's Government from their settled policy. Their attitude towards Burma and Burma's aspirations and their anxiety to see her progress to her goal, remain unchanged.
The House will wish to join with me in extending their deep sympathy to the relations of the victims and their earnest good wishes to the new Council for the successful fulfilment of its vital tasks.

Mr. Eden: While sharing the right hon. Gentleman's sentiments about this outrage, may I ask if he can give any information as to what are the position and responsibilities of any British troops in Burma, in view of the grave situation which exists there now?

The Prime Minister: The responsibility for maintaining internal security rests with the Governor of Burma. The troops


are available for that purpose and are, of course, under British command, and under the control of the Governor. There is no restriction on their employment. As the right hon. Gentleman realises, it is not yet a Dominion Government and, therefore, we have our responsibilities for law and order. I should add that every step is being taken to provide for reinforcements if they are needed, and a request has been sent to India for the use of Indian troops if they should be necessary. So far they have not been necessary.

Mr. Driberg: Will my right hon. Friend specially convey to the Burmese people the real and deep sorrow which is felt by Members on this side of the House who learned to respect U Aung San and his comrades, and will he bear in mind that the moral guilt of the assassination attaches less, perhaps, to the brutal gunmen in Rangoon than to the comfortable Conservative gentlemen here who incited U Saw to treachery and sabotage?

Hon. Members: Oh!

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is not entitled to make imputations of that kind. I would point out that that is an unnecessary imputation. After all, we do expect reasonable Parliamentary manners here, and I must say that the hon. Gentleman went quite outside what is reasonable.

Mr. Driberg: With respect, when I said "here" I meant here in England. I was not specifically referring to this House.

Mr. Speaker: It would certainly appear that the hon. Member referred to hon. Members here.

Mr. Nicholson: I know the Prime Minister and the country will not pay any attention to that sort of question. May I ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the crucial nature of the tragedy and the grave menace which it strikes at the future stability of Burma, he will give the House an opportunity for debating this matter?

The Prime Minister: I should have thought it was premature to come to any decision on that point. We will see how events proceed.

SUPPLY

[13TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Second Report from the Committee of Public Accounts considered.

ARMED FORCES, EUROPE (CURRENCY LOSSES)

3.37 p.m.

Mr. Grimston: I beg to move:
That this House doth agree with the Second Report of the Public Accounts Committee, and expresses its regret that the Secretary of State for War did not disclose in Committee of Supply on 18th February the full extent of the losses incurred by the Exchequer.
I think it will be within the recollection of the House that the immense losses through currency operations in Germany and elsewhere—a loss amounting to £58 million sterling—shocked both the House and the public when they came to light. They came to light during the Debates in Committee of Supply and on Report on 18th and 27th February this year on a Supplementary Army Estimate. Perhaps I may remind the House that in the course of those Debates, my noble Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) asked for a Select Committee to be appointed to go into the matter. In response to this request, the Minister of Defence suggested that the matter would shortly be coming before the Public Accounts Committee and that that was the appropriate body to make the investigation. That, of course, was accepted at the time. We now have the second Report of the Public Accounts Committee, dealing with this matter, and if it is not presumptuous of me to do so, I am sure I will be expressing the views of the House if I say that we are indebted to the Public Accounts Committee for the very full and careful work with which they have presented us.
The Motion which I am moving falls into two parts, with which I propose to deal separately. The first deals with the report, and the second expresses regret at the failure of the Secretary of State to disclose the full extent of the losses when he first had an opportunity to do so. First, I wish to direct the attention of the House to the conclusions of the Report. Broadly


speaking, the fact emerges that the losses could have been reduced had more speedy and energetic steps been taken by the War Office, and had those responsible in Germany been quicker in informing the War Office of what was happening. That is alluded to in the Report. Be it remembered that within this sum of £58 million sterling there is also a loss of dollars. In our present dollar situation that is an extremely serious matter, and I will hazard a guess that within that £58 million sterling there is a greater loss of dollars than the amount of dollars that will be saved by the proposed cuts in newsprint.
During the Committee stage of the Estimates the Secretary of State sought to ride off responsibility by saying that a very large proportion of the loss occurred at the time of the Coalition or "caretaker" Government. It emerges from the report which is now before us that the whole of the German losses occurred during the tenure of office of the present Administration. It is true that some £14 million sterling of loss occurred in Holland between January and October, 1945, part of that period, of course, being covered by the time just preceding and during the General Election. But this should have been a warning of what was likely to happen in Germany; and, indeed, the Committee direct attention to this. I refer the House to page xiii of the Report—to the conclusions—in which the Committee say,
Your Committee, however, consider that the War Office should have been warned by what happened in the Netherlands, where sup-pluses accumulated rapidly from January to October, 1945.
Of course, these losses occurred when operations were still proceeding. As I say, this lesson was apparently disregarded.
I want now to examine the incidence of the losses in Germany. For that, I would ask the House to look at the Annex on page 30 of the Report, where a table is set out, showing the dates and the amounts of the losses in Germany as they occurred. It will be observed there that the first loss to show itself was in October, 1945—that is, three months after the present Administration had been in office—and the loss then showing was 49,912,000 marks. If hon. Members will recollect that 40 marks to the pound is the correct exchange rate to use in these calculations, they will find

that the loss was of the order of £1,250,000. That was not known by the War Office. It was known in Germany in November, but it was not known in the War Office until January, and the Public Accounts Committee report on the length of time it took for the authorities in Germany to make that information available here. As soon as they heard it, the War Office asked for further information, and it became apparent that by February, 1946, the loss had amounted to over £4,500,000 sterling.
It was at that point that the decision was taken to introduce the special voucher scheme. I do not quite know how one pronounces it, but I believe they are known as B.A.F.S.V. But let the House note that, that decision having been taken, it took no less than six months to put it into operation. Just let us see what happened in those six months. The vouchers were not introduced until August—the decision having been taken in February—and during that time the losses rose to a total of £31 million sterling; or in other words, in that period of six months the losses rose by £26 million. With the losses running at this rate of increase, the War Office delayed the introduction of the scheme by one month through rejecting the original design of the vouchers, because it was feared that they might be forged. I presume they must have known the losses were at this rate. They also adhered to their decision that two months' notice must be given to the troops before a change was made. I commented on that on an earlier occasion. There was a written Question put down to the Secretary of State for War in May. Two months' notice was to be given before the voucher scheme was introduced, at a time when the losses were mounting at this staggering rate. We will look to see what the Committee say about that, and I refer the House again to page XIII, in the conclusions in their Report. They say:
As regards the delay of one month due to the War Office rejecting the original design of the vouchers, your Committee consider that on balance the risk of forgery might have been taken, even if it had become necessary on that ground to replace the original vouchers at a later date
I understand the War Office did, in fact, receive that advice from the Treasury.
With regard to the other point, I should like to read part of paragraph 43 on page XIII:


The War Office felt that it was absolutely essential to maintain the morale of the forces and any sudden interference with well established practices might have given rise to great difficulties. Your Committee doubt, however, whether the introduction of a scheme with the object of restricting undesirable practices would in fact have created much difficulty.
I think the House will agree with that. We must recollect the staggering rate at which these losses were rising. It is quite clear, I think, that the Administration disregarded the warning from Holland and showed lack of drive in stopping losses which have cost the country large sums of money. Let me refer to something which was said during the hearing of the evidence, and which appears on page 8 in the minutes of evidence. This was an answer by Sir Eric Speed to a question by the hon. Member for Shore-ditch (Mr. Thurtle). The question was:
You, told us that you first realised there was a danger of substantial loss in January, 1946. At what date was the matter first brought to the notice of Ministers? 
The answer was:
I cannot produce evidence of it having been brought before Ministers, but I personally discussed this with Ministers continuously from the time when I had that report, which was in February, 1946.
I think it is clear that there was delay in this matter that could have been avoided; and, having regard to the time which elapsed after the authorities in Germany first reported the matter to the War Office, to the time when the vouchers were introduced, taking into consideration the delay of one month through the changing of the design of the vouchers, and this insistence upon two months' notice to the troops, I think the Administration have let the country down very badly in this regard.
I want to turn to the last conclusion of the Public Accounts Committee, and I am afraid—I hope the House will forgive me—that, in order to bring out what I want to say, I must read it in full. It says:
Your Committee note that there was great difficulty in making British personnel in Germany appreciate the fact that any loss is incurred by paying in cigarettes or other goods for services rendered or for local products. When payment is made in marks for such services or products the cost falls on Germany, but cigarettes and other goods, e.g., food, are provided by the United Kingdom, to a large extent out of the limited dollar resources of this country.

I ask the House to notice the last sentence particularly:
Your Committee understand that the practice of obtaining services and local products in return for goods and not by payment in marks is still prevalent, and they recommend that the appropriate authorities should take all necessary steps to stop this practice.
I do not know if hon. Members saw the other day a poignant letter from a parent in "The Times" in regard to venereal disease. It was published on 16th July. I quote an extract from it:
Vice naked and unashamed comes as a great shock to youth, and it is absolutely wrong that young boys should be sent to places where women sell themselves openly it the streets for cigarettes or soap.
I now turn to a Question which was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) the other day. He asked the Secretary of State for War,
whether he is aware that payment for articles is still being made by British troops in occupied territory in goods and cigarettes; and what steps are being taken to bring this practice to an end?
The Secretary of State for War answered:
Yes, Sir. B.A.O.R. have made such transactions a disciplinary offence, and disciplinary action has been taken in a number of cases.
There then followed several supplementary questions. My noble Friend the Member for Horsham asked:
In view of the serious scandal that arose in the past from this practice of exchange and barter, is the Minister satisfied that all possible steps are being taken to prevent it?
The Secretary of State answered:
Yes, Sir, and I think that the Public Accounts Committee which investigated the matter is of the same opinion.
That is exactly what the Public Accounts Committee is not. They say that the thing is still prevalent. Yet the Secretary of State for War gives that answer.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Bellenger): Is the suggestion which the hon. Member is making that there is a large scale traffic on the part of our troops in Germany for illicit or immoral purposes, and that that traffic is in cigarettes?

Mr. Grimston: I am dealing here with the last recommendation of the report of the Public Accounts Committee, which said that the practice of getting services and goods by cigarettes and other things is still prevalent. I quote this letter from "The Times" to show some of the temptations to which the troops may be subjected. If that is right, I am now going


to show the House that the Secretary of State does not understand this point. My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes then asked the Secretary of State:
Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Public Accounts Committee expressed great concern at the practice?
The Secretary of State answered: "No, Sir." I have read the Report of the Public Accounts Committee, and that is exactly contrary to what that Committee expressed. They expressed great concern. Yet the right hon. Gentleman says:
No, Sir. I have read the Public Accounts Committee's Report … and I think that the introduction of the special currency vouchers has stopped all chances of it continuing."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st July,1947: Vol. 439. c 1126.]
This has got nothing to do with the special currency vouchers. This is to do with cigarettes in payment for services or other goods.

Mr. Lipson: Will the hon. Gentleman give the date of the Question asked by the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis)?

Mr. Grimston: It was 1st July. I think it is pretty obvious that there is little hope of convincing the Army—which is difficult anyway—that it is wrong to use cigarettes or other things in payment for services when the Secretary of State for War can give answers like that in the House to supplementary questions. He has not understood this paragraph in the report. How can we expect to put it over to the troops that it is wrong when the Secretary of State for War obviously has not understood it himself?
I come now to the second part of the Motion, which concerns the personal conduct of the right hon. Gentleman. Let me give the House the background of the matter. On 18th February, 1947, the Secretary of State comes down to the House with a Supplementary Estimate, in which there is a request to the House to provide £20 million for these currency losses. Incidentally, the Supplementary Estimate was introduced by the Financial Secretary to the War Office and no mention was made of this matter. But it was pressed, and we know now from Annex A, to which I have referred, that the German losses alone, in August, 1946, stood at £31 million. That is seven, months before the right hon. Gentleman comes down to the House for a £20 million Supplementary Estimate. I also

have here the Army Appropriation Account for 1945–46, and it will be seen from the abstract of that Account that it was signed by Sir Eric Speed, who is now chief accounting officer, on 24th December, 1946—two months before the Debate took place in the House. This was not available, but it was ordered by the House of Commons to be printed, on 21st January, 1947. It was not available in the House until April, though, of course, it was available in the Department.
Bearing this background in mind, I want to refer the House specifically to what passed during the Debate in Committee of Supply on 18th February, 1947. During that Debate, when the Secretary of State for War was explaining this matter, I intervened and said:
The right hon. Gentleman will observe that the Explanatory Note with these Estimates says that this loss of £20 million arose during the current year. The right hon. Gentleman has been asked whether that is the total loss
He was asked that question, I think, by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) and by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale). I then asked him again whether £20 million was the total loss, and the right hon. Gentleman answered:
Yes, Sir, the loss came this year because the marks which have accumulated have to he dealt with in this current year, but the actual speculations occurred right from the start.…
The right hon. Gentleman gave a categorical "Yes, Sir" when he was asked on 18th February whether the £20 million was the total loss or not. Of course, we now know that £20 million was nothing like the total loss, which was £58 million sterling.

Mr. James Callaghan: The hon. Member knew it eight days later.

Mr. Rellenger: If the hon. Member will read his question he will see the question he then asked me was in relation to the current year.

Mr. Grimston: Oh, no. The right hon. Gentleman cannot get away with it like that. If the Secretary of State turns to the question put to him by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne and others, he will see the question put was: "Is the £20 million the total of these losses,


or are we to be Laced with some more? At that time the Secretary of State gave a categorical "Yes, Sir."

Sir Peter Macdonald: Would the hon. Member mind reading again the question which he put, because there is no doubt about it?

Mr. Grimston: On 18th February this year I said:
The right hon. Gentleman will observe that the Explanatory Note with these Estimates says that this loss of £20 million arose during the current year. The right hon. Gentleman has been asked whether that is the total loss, and that was the question I was trying to put."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th February. 1947; Vol. 433, c. 1065.]
Surely, that is clear enough. The right hon. Gentleman then answered: "Yes, Sir." I must leave it to the House to judge. What I want to know, and what I think the House would like to knew is, whether the right hon. Gentleman gave that answer from ignorance.
Before I conclude I must quote another remark made by the Secretary of State during the subsequent Report stage of the Estimates. On 26th February, 1947, during the Report stage of the Supplementary Estimate, when the right hon. Gentleman did disclose the total amount of the loss, he made this remark:
I have not attempted to hide anything from the House on the Report stage…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February, 5947; Vol. 433, c. 2214.]
As I say, the House must be the judge whether or not the Minister has been merely incompetent. Parliament has the right, nay, the duty, to demand a high standard from His Majesty's Ministers, and it seems to me that a standard which prescribes that the House can be misled on one occasion provided the Minister "comes clean" later, is just not good enough. My right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) has said on another occasion that this Government degrades everything that it touches, and I believe this is yet another example of it.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Hollis: I beg to second the Motion.
Hon. Members will agree that my hon. Friend for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) has rendered a very great public service in

bringing this most important and disturbing matter to the attention of the House and of the public. Its importance can hardly be exaggerated. I speak in the interval which by custom elapses between a Minister's statement and his subsequent apology. We are all anxious to hear the right hon. Gentleman's apology. I will not attempt to anticipate what he may say, or delay hon. Members by going through the whole of the exposè already given in detail by my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury. My own feeling—and it will be interesting to learn whether the right hon. Gentleman can dispel it— is that he has not understood a single word of what has been going on from the beginning to the end of this transaction. I could give many instances of that. As it is, I will give only one. In the Debate on 26th February, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre), on this very important question of the delay in issuing vouchers, said:
Any member of the Forces would have been entitled to a percentage to keep him going, but if he had more, he would have to explain to the paymaster how he got hold of it and justify it. If that had been done, instead of allowing it to drag on for two months, we would not have to bear this large loss.
The right hon. Gentleman interrupted my hon. and gallant Friend at this point to say:
That was done, and they were not allowed to transfer more than a certain amount without a certificate from the commanding officer.
That is the basic point of the whole transaction, which the right hon. Gentleman in his' own speech of defence has not seen fit to mention one way or the other. It is clear that he can have understood nothing and that he had no idea about what was going on. He was unaware of the important question of whether there was or was not a lapse of two months before the orders were given, because my hon. and gallant Friend, in reply to the right hon. Gentleman's interjection, stated:
If that was done, what notice was given to the troops of the introduction of this currency? Obviously, unless it was done suddenly and without prior notice, the same effect would be achieved as if two months were allowed to drag on."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th Feb., 5947, Vol. 433, c. 2226.]
It will be interesting if the right hon. Gentleman can take up that point again


when he speaks. Up to the present, the House has not the least notion whether there was notice or not; nor should we have heard anything about it at all, if there had not been an intervention as a result of the remarks made by a Member.
The first indictment we have against the right hon. Gentleman is the intolerable tardiness and casualness in owning up to the fact that there was a loss of £59; million. It was a matter almost of indifference whether it was £20 million, or £59 million—it merely dropped out in an aside. My next point is whether in fact we have even yet had the confession of the right hon. Gentleman as to what is the full extent of the loss, about which I am very doubtful. If we look at the second Report of the Committee of Public Accounts, we find, in addition to the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman on the £59 million, which in all conscience is considerable enough, an ominous heading "Unrecorded Losses" appearing over paragraph 15. there, we read:
in addition to the losses recorded in the accounts, it seems clear that other losses were incurred.
It is extremely disturbing that time after time these new things were being thrown up—a few more millions here, a few more millions there—until they do not bother to add up the total sum, which it is perhaps too difficult to do. We find it stated in paragraph 15:
As mentioned in paragraph 8, the War Office expected that some part of the pay issued in German currency would be spent on local products, hut, in fact, the profits from illicit transactions enabled members of the Forces to pay for their local expenditure without drawing anything like their full pay. As will be seen from paragraph 20 below, the whole of the currency issued as pay, together with a substantial surplus arising from dealings with the civil population, returned to the Army Paymasters. The use of Allied military marks did not lead to the expected increase of currency in circulation (paragraph 10), and thus no part of the cost of the pay of the Forces was borne by Germany. The United Kingdom has paid in sterling the total cost of pay, and to the extent to which this cost should have been borne by Germany there is a loss, the amount of which cannot be determined.
If we turn to paragraph 22, we find that apparently exactly the same thing has been going on in Italy.
My third point, which is the most highly disturbing of all, is that we have not the least reason to imagine that this has

stopped. My hon. Friend the Member for Westbury has referred to the question I asked on 1st July. My hon. Friend has taken hon. Members through the whole story, and I need not therefore delay Members too long. The noble Lord, the hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winter-ton) asked:
In view of the serious scandal that arose in the past from this practice of exchange and barter, is the Minister satisfied that all possible steps are being taken to prevent it?
Mr. BELLENGER: Yes, Sir, and I think that the Public Accounts Committee which investigated the matter is of the same opinion.
Mr. HOLLIS: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Public Accounts Committee expressed great concern at the practice?
Mr. BELLENGER: No, Sir. I have read the Public Accounts Committee's report and the evidence, and I think that the introduction of the special currency vouchers has stopped all chances of it continuing."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 1St July. 1947; Vol. 439, c. 1126.]
The all-important point is that the right hon. Gentleman could not have understood a word of what he was talking about in giving that answer, which, of course, we accept as being made in good faith. He may have read but he could not have learnt and inwardly digested the report of the Public Accounts Committee, or have understood it, when he read it, because it states exactly the contrary. It refers to the special vouchers scheme, which we hope has stopped up certain leaks, but the report never says that the introduction of special currency vouchers has stopped up all leakages; in fact, the report states the direct opposite. The Committee recounts the story of the introduction of this special currency voucher, and admits that these vouchers have stopped part of these evils, but the Committee also says that as long as there is this barter of goods against goods, it is inevitable that the British taxpayer is being defrauded. The Committee concludes its Report by saying:
Your Committee understand that the practice of obtaining services and local products in return for goods and not by payment in marks is still prevalent, and they recommend that the appropriate authorities should take all necessary steps to stop this practice.
Before we can possibly give any form of acquittal to the right hon. Gentleman, we must have reassurance on that matter. Not only must account be given of these vast sums of money allowed to be lost in the past, but some assurance must be given that money is not being lost to the British taxpayer at the present time. We


must be given some indication from the right hon. Gentleman that he understands the working of his own Department, about which we have not the smallest assurance at present.

4.10 p.m.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Bellenger): Before I reply to the Debate, may I draw attention to the Amendment, to leave out all words after "Committee," which stands on the Paper in my name? Perhaps it will suit the convenience of the House if I formally move that Amendment at a later stage. I think it would give a wider scope to the Debate if I did not move that Amendment at this stage.

Mr. Speaker: I think it will be more convenient if the Amendment is not moved now, so that the Debate can be left wide open in consequence. Perhaps when the Under-Secretary winds up the Debate, he will move the Amendment formally, and then the House can divide upon it.

Mr. Bellenger: The speeches of the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) and the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) have put me in something of a quandary. I do not quite know whether the charge against me is a charge in the first degree —as, I believe, occurs in America, in relation to certain crimes—namely, that I wilfully misled the Committee when I or my hon. Friend presented the Supplementary Estimates, by attempting to withhold information from it, or whether the charge is something a little less, namely, as the hon. Member for Devizes so charmingly put it, that I did not understand a word of what I was saying. I want to speak frankly to the House, and I hope that whatever decision is taken at the end of this Debate, the House will at least withdraw the charge that I did not understand what I was saying. I shall make it clear that I understood very much what I was saying, both in Committee of Supply and, later, on the Report stage.
Before I come to the terms of the Motion, I wish to make one point quite clear. On a previous occasion surprise was expressed that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, when introducing the Supplementary Estimates, did not mention the matter of £20 million which was included in those Estimates. My hon.

Friend acted on my express instruction. I realised only too well that junior Ministers, as a rule, introduce what they have to introduce—the Supplementary Estimates in this case—as briefly as possible, and leave it to the Minister to reply to the Debate and deal, if possible with the difficult part of the Debate. There was not the slightest doubt in my mind that the loss of £20 million in this current year was a serious matter. I recognised that long before then, when the matter was first brought to my attention in the War Office, and when I had to give my assent to certain serious steps being taken to change the currency in which troops—and not only troops, but civilians and others as well—were paid. I, therefore, hope the House will understand that there was no attempt at subterfuge merely because my hon. Friend did not refer to that item specifically in his remarks.
Now let me come to the terms of the Motion. First, I would like to explain a point which was not made clear in a previous Debate—how was it that £20 million was taken in a Supplementary Estimate for 1946–47, to cover losses in that year, whereas nothing was taken for the corresponding, but larger losses, in the previous year, whether by original or Supplementary Estimate? If the House will turn to paragraphs 2, 3 and 31 of the Report of the Public Accounts Committee, they will see that the matter is referred to there. During the war, and up to and including the financial year 1945–46, funds for the Army and for war purposes were supplied by means of Votes of Credit. Those who were Members of this House during the war will know that we had no chance of investigating war expenditure such as we have now. What was done was to introduce a token sum in the Estimates. In other words, the Government were given more or less carte blanche to run the war, and the cost was not subject to the same detailed examination as that which goes on now. That course was approved by the House. For this reason, it would have been contrary to the recognised practice for the amount of the currency loss falling in 1945–46 to have been covered either in the original Estimate—if the loss had been foreseen at all—or in a Supplementary Estimate. The attention of the House was drawn to the matter in a reply to a written Question on loth March, 1946, but the


loss was charged to the Vote of Credit, and no specific Parliamentary action was required.
The position in the following financial year, 1946–47, was different, because of the reversion to our peace-time procedure of presenting detailed Estimates. I could not, however, make provision in the original Army Estimates for 1946–47, because, when they were being prepared, these losses had not been brought to the notice of the War Office. Right hon. Gentlemen who have been Ministers themselves will know the procedure of making up Estimates. Generally, it is in January that the final figures are inserted. It was not possible for me, in the original Estimates, to include a sum to meet this specific loss. It was not until later in that year that we had any idea of the magnitude of this loss. It follows, therefore, that the first occasion for making provision for this loss was when I did so in the form of the Supplementary Estimate which was presented to the House in February, 1947.
Now I will deal specifically with the terms of the second part of the Motion. The suggestion is, although there was some difference between the hon. Member for Westbury and the hon. Member for Devizes, that in asking for this Supplementary Estimate for the provision of £20 million for this loss, it was incumbent upon me to give full details of complete losses covering, not merely the financial year current, but preceding periods. I would like to draw the attention of the House to page II of the Supplementary Estimate which states:
The Supplementary Estimate provides £20 million to cover such losses as were incurred (luring the current year"—
that is 1946–47—
prior to the introduction of the special voucher scheme.
It seems to be perfectly clear from those words—and I presume that when this Estimate was introduced, Members had taken the opportunity of reading the explanatory remarks, even though they did not pay too much attention to the detailed figures—that the loss for which the supplementary provision was being asked, formed part of larger losses. I can place no other interpretation upon those words; no other meaning can be attached to that sentence, in my opinion. On that ground alone, I strongly

repudiate any implication—and I think there was an implication in what both hon. Members opposite said—that I deliberately withheld from the House knowledge that the loss of £20 million was not the whole story.
Moreover, it was well known to me and to my Department that the Army Appropriation Account for the previous year would shortly be presented to Parliament, with the the remarks of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, and would be submitted in the ordinary way for examination to the Public Accounts Committee, and, subsequently, to this House. It is really beyond reason to suggest that, even if that had been my intention, which I suggest it was not, the full measure of the losses would have escaped the scrutiny of this House. I hope and believe that the House will agree that it has always been my desire and practice to furnish to the House all facts and details which may be relevant to the subject which they are discussing. The matter did not end there.
The occasion on which the Motion suggests I should have given more information was the presentation of the Supplementary Estimates, the details of which were set out in the White Paper to which I have referred. I would like the House to pay particular attention to what I am now about to say. The business before the House then was, in fact, the provision of further sums required during the year ending 31st March, 1947, to meet charges to Army Votes which were not provided for in the Estimates of the year. These charges to Army Votes are specified in detail in the White Paper, and the sum with which the House is now concerned was stated separately. I suggest to the House that there was nothing in the requirements of the occasion which would demand, or even permit, that I should mention other expenditure already incurred in another year. Indeed, when, on the Report stage, I gave full details of the whole of the losses, it was as a matter of courtesy, in reply to a question which was, I think, put to me by the hon. Member for Westbury, and not because the method of their disposal was relevant to the business before the House; but I did it. Certain hon. Gentlemen rose, notably the right hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), and asked whether the matter was in Order. I believe that you, Mr.


Speaker, or Mr. Deputy-Speaker, ruled that it was out of Order to discuss any previous losses. To sum up, I cannot admit that I was at fault in the original presentation of the Supplementary Estimates. I repudiate entirely that I was guilty of deliberate misrepresentation. So much for that part of the Motion which seeks to fasten on me blame for what I venture to say to my hon. Friends, and, indeed, to other hon. Members who are well disposed to listen to facts, is something which, if it were true, would need to be disclosed by anybody whether Minister or an hon. Member in coming to this House and presenting the facts.
As to the Report itself, the hon. Member who promoted this Motion made one or two points of detail—and I expect other hon. Members will, too, in the course of the Debate—which will be answered, I hope, by my hon. Friend later on. As the Minister responsible for the Department to which the handling of this matter fell, I accept the broad conclusions of the Committee. Let us take a look at those conclusions. I think that if the House will turn to the conclusions, because I wish to refer to them paragraph by paragraph, they will see better what I am driving at. Paragraph 40 on page XII, which is the first of the conclusions, does not, I think, require much comment from me, except to say that these conclusions point to the fact, which was based on the evidence given by officers to the Public Accounts Committee, that the losses are real losses and not accountancy losses. We have admitted that, and we have placed all the relevant evidence before the Public Accounts Committee on which they base this conclusion. If we turn to paragraph 41 at the top of page XIII—the decision of the Allied authorities to maintain German currency as legal tender, to give it equal status with the Allied military mark, and to establish an exchange rate of 40 marks to the £ sterling—a rate which many of us would think was out of actual relation to the value of the £ sterling—that decision was taken after the decision between the participating governments and there were quite a number of them. It was in the light of that decision, but without being solely responsible for it, that the War Office had to operate.
The Committee referred to the omission of the War Office to take precautionary measures before the losses were incurred, and great play has been made with that part of the Committee's report by the two hon. Gentlemen who have spoken. If hon. Members will turn to Part IV of Appendix 1, pages 28 and 29 of the report, they will see that a great variety of precautionary measures were, indeed, taken by the War Office; and I read this part of their conclusions not as a condemnation of the War Office for taking no measures whatever, but as a criticism for not taking adequate measures. But measures were taken, and hon. Members can see what those measures were.

Mr. Harold Macmillan: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is unconsciously misleading the House, in connection with Part IV, which is part of the Report and not the conclusions.

Mr. Bellenger: The contention of the Public Accounts Committee is that the War Office was lacking entirely in taking steps to prevent this—

Mr. Macmillan: The right hon. Gentleman referred to part of the conclusions. This is part of the Report.

Mr. Bellenger: I certainly have gone through the conclusions in paragraph 41 of the Committee, and I referred the House to this particular Part IV of Appendix 1 to rebut the suggestions made in paragraph 41. It is true that Part IV of Appendix r is evidence submitted to the Committee by the permanent Under-Secretary of the War Office I say that that evidence goes to show that the War Office had taken—how far they were adequate or not the House can draw their own conclusions—but we had taken very potent steps, as we thought, to stop this leakage. I have no doubt that we did, by these methods, depreciate to a certain extent the speculation that was going on; at any rate, we put some difficulties in the way of it, and we certainly did curb this illicit trading.

Mr. Keeling: As the measures which the War Office took were quite ineffective, does it really make any difference whether they took any measures or none at all?

Mr. Bellenger: I am dealing with the Committee's conclusions, and the conclusions were that we had taken no steps


at all. I say that we had taken steps, although admitting that these steps were not adequate. The gravamen of the charge is that experience in the Netherlands should have warned the War Office of the likelihood of corresponding events in Germany. When the non-fraternisation rule was lifted in 1945, it would have been then a wise step to prepare for increasing transactions with the local population. I will not attempt to deny that that suggestion was well-founded. Events have proved it to be so. Although pressure for revocation of the non-fraternisation Order was strong in this country and in this House, it was by no means universal among the occupying troops, and the circumstances of the two countries, Holland and the Netherlands, and those in Germany were not exactly similar.
In Holland there was a spontaneous and immediate atmosphere of friendship between our troops and the native population and one must not forget that those people had been starved of the bare necessities of life for a long time. In those circumstances, it was not entirely for wrong motives that our troops, and not only our troops but others, took the opportunity of engaging in the sale of food and other commodities which they acquired from the canteens. It may interest the House to know that first contacts in Germany between our troops and the people were hostile—[Laughter]. Hon. Members may like to know that these facts have been ascertained from the reports submitted by the authorities at that time, and what I am stating is information I have got from those reports. Hon. Members opposite may treat these remarks of mine with some cynicism, but that was the state of things when our troops first entered Germany. The hostility may not have been entirely between the different sexes, but nevertheless, definite hostility was shown towards our troops. I am not talking of cases where fighting troops were meeting fighting troops. I am talking of where they had met the civilian population who had become by that time very peaceful indeed. [Laughter.] I hope hon. Members will treat this matter with the seriousness with which I am treating it.
There was one other factor. In Holland the troops were billeted, but in Germany they were not, and they are not even today. They are not billeted in

Germany generally speaking as they were after the first world war, when I was billeted in a house in Germany and had adequate opportunities for fraternisation, though there were small opportunities this time. I admit the sole responsibility of the War Office, but if they were not prescient, no one else was either. The Committee put that on record by stating very generously in paragraph 44:
that it is easy to be wise after the event,
as some hon. Members are now.
In the same paragraph of the report there is some criticism of the military authorities on the spot. The hon. Member for Westbury complained this afternoon because the military authorities on the spot did not bring to the notice of the War Office the illicit trading that was going on or the amount of the accumulation of those surpluses in currency which arose out of those trading operations. It is true that the consolidated accounts showing the beginning of these accumulations were first seen at headquarters in Germany about the middle of November, 1945, but, in fairness to the military authorities on the spot, I think I ought to say that the accumulations at that time were not very serious, something of the order of £1 million sterling. That £1 million sterling represented the balance of the accumulation over nine months. If hon. Members will turn to page 30 of the printed document, they will see that the balances actually declined during November. Therefore, I suggest that it was not unreasonable for the military authorities on the spot to assume that the accumulation was merely temporary.

Mr. Grimston: Did I hear the right hon. Gentleman correctly as saying that the balances declined during November?

Mr. Bellenger: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Grimston: That is not according to the figures in Annex A, which show that in November the mark balances totalled 89,096,000, while in December they amounted to 54,822,000 mark balances.

Mr. Bellenger: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to explain that. He accuses me of not stating what is correct, but I hope he will understand what I mean. In November, 1945, the surplus mark balances totalled 89,096,000. By December, which would include the


November figures, the figure had dropped to 54,822,000 mark balances, and again I say that the military authorities were entitled to assume that these surpluses were only temporary and they were on the wane. I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree with what I am saying. At any rate, what I want to say in this connection is that it could not have been foreseen by the military authorities in Germany that the proportion of these trading balances would rise to the large figures which they eventually did. In the final sentence of this paragraph the Committee remarks that there was an unnecessary delay of two or perhaps three months in applying the voucher scheme in Austria. I am not prepared to dispute the suggestion. The first vouchers were not issued in Austria until April, 1946, two months after action had been taken in connection with the German balances, and I can appreciate the feelings of the executive authorities in these matters. No one had had experience of what would happen by the introduction of this system of canteen money. It was a novelty, and I would seriously suggest to the House that they should consider that the troops did not easily understand the somewhat sudden change of policy which might affect them very considerably.

Mr. Bowles: My right hon. Friend has read the last sentence in paragraph 41. May I read to him the penultimate sentence because it seems to excuse the War Office altogether? That sentence reads:
Your Committee are glad to note that, as soon as the War Office became aware of the position, action was taken to introduce a special voucher scheme, but it is to be regretted that prompt warning was not given by the authorities in Germany.
That suggests that the War Office, as soon as they knew, took action.

Mr. Bellenger: I would not go so far as that, because the Public Accounts Committee report does criticise the War Office to a certain extent and I have already said we accept their report, or, at any rate, we accept their criticism. I submit today the explanation why the B.A.F.S.V. system was not introduced into Austria earlier than it was, and I think the reason is a good one. There is another reason—the actual designing and printing of these notes was a very large operation indeed, and we thought

that we should not have sufficient of these notes to deal with Austria as well as Germany. Besides, we wanted to get some experience of the working of this system in Germany. In paragraph 4z the Committee considers:
that on balance the risk of forgery might have been taken
for the delay of one month would have been avoided. I cannot say I agree with the Committee entirely. It may interest the House to know that forgery did occur in the American canteens, but what the losses due to that forgery were, I cannot say. We were acting on advice from the Bank of England and we had also legal advice. Rightly or wrongly, the War Office thought it better to get a waterproof note and delay it for a little time to get a scheme of that nature run—

Mr. Brendan Bracken: A waterproof note?

Mr. Bellenger: A watertight note, or a note that was not subject easily to forgery if that satisfies the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Bracken: Was it a watermarked note?

Mr. Bellenger: That was the reason why there was a delay in introducing this new currency in Germany, and the House can judge if we did right or whether we should have taken that risk of forgery and introduced the note earlier. I do not know whether, speaking after the event, it may have been wrong not to take the risk of forgery as the Committee says, but that cannot be held against the War Office too seriously as a very important item in the mark losses for which we have had to ask the House subsequently to pay. I have already made some reference to the generous remarks of the Committee in paragraph 4 of its Report where, having heard the detailed evidence and having sat during a number of meetings, it says that it is very easy to be wise after the event —or, as the right hon. Gentleman would say, it is no good jobbing backwards.

Mr. Scollan: It is all very well to talk of being wise after the event, hut is it not the case that the Government appointed economic advisers to the Control Commission to fix the rate of exchange between the mark and the pound? Where those men fit for the job?

Mr. Bellenger: The rate of exchange between the mark and the pound was fixed long before an economic adviser Was appointed to the Control Commission, and I would remind my hon. Friend that this was not merely a matter of Britain saying what the rate to the pound should be. I could give the House a very interesting account of the negotiations which went on, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends may be aware of the nature of some of these negotiations. On a far higher level than the War Office, the rate of 40 marks to the pound was fixed between all the participating Governments.
I should like now to say something about paragraph 45 to which both hon. Gentlemen attached considerable importance in their speeches, and which relates to the avoidance of future losses. May I say to the House that when the certain accumulation of losses was brought to my attention—I was then Financial Secretary to the War Office, a fact which is mentioned in the chronological account at the back of this Report—I was deeply disturbed at the losses which had occurred, but I thought that it was not my duty to inquire at that time into what had already happened, but to try to stop something that might happen in the future. When, therefore, I was asked to give my approval to the introduction of a new emergency currency, different from the local currency or pounds sterling in which troops had had the right to be paid, I gave it only because I wanted to stop this leakage. I was not so much concerned with the past. Indeed, a good deal of the past had occurred before I became Financial Secretary and, in any event, before 11th March, 1946, the date mentioned. The hon. Gentlemen mentioned the Committee's remarks on future losses. I think they were referring to something other than the losses in currency which the Committee had examined.
The future losses with which the Committee was concerned were losses in goods, because the voucher scheme, as I hope and believe, stopped the currency losses. It is possible that further losses may arise if successful forgeries are produced. The House will remember that 1 mentioned a little while ago that forgeries of American canteen notes had occurred, and I have given instructions for a new

set of currency notes to be held in readiness for that emergency should it arise, which I hope it will not. In the last sentence of their Report, the Committee says:
… the practice of obtaining service and local products in return for goods and not by payment in marks is still prevalent …
I think that is what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Westbury had in mind when he introduced what I thought was an entirely irrelevant consideration, namely, a letter that had appeared in "The Times" which had regretted the prevalence of V.D. among our troops and other personnel in Germany. If it is his suggestion, or if it was the Committee's suggestion, that future losses are likely to occur merely because troops are going to barter cigarettes for immoral purposes, then I think that is a very serious suggestion which needs close examination. I should not myself have been prepared to make that suggestion, with all the facts at my disposal, and I am surprised that it has been thrown into this discussion today, because I do not believe there is any great substance in it. I have always found that if men and women, whether troops or civilians, want to indulge in those practices, it is not always a question of barter. Even if it were so, the charge would not fall on the Army Funds, since there would be no currency loss. The only loss that would occur—and I think this is what the Committee meant when it inserted that sentence or two—would be a loss in goods.

Mr. Grimston: Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to read the paragraph again?

Mr. Bellenger: That is my interpretation of it, and if it differs from that of the hon. Gentleman, we must agree to differ. In any case, I give the House the assurance that so far there has been no further currency loss, whatever may be the loss in the particular respect to which the hon. Gentleman referred. In this connection, may I say to hon. Gentlemen and to Members of another place that they should be very careful when they make these light and irresponsible remarks about our young troops in Germany? Parents in this


country and the authorities at the War Office are greatly concerned about the opportunities for immorality in Germany, and, since I may be out of Order in enlarging on the point, I would merely say in passing that we ought to have the help of all hon. Gentlemen in all quarters of the House in stopping these practices, and not have them linked up to something which, as I understand the speeches of the two hon. Gentlemen who preceded me, was an attack on the Government, for purposes which they know best.

Mr. Lipson: Surely the Minister is not suggesting that there should he anything in the nature of concealment of the facts, and no doubt he will remember that the letter referred to is written by the father of a young soldier on the evidence of the soldier himself.

Mr. Bellenger: I am also the father of a young soldier who has served in Germany, and I think I know as much as some of these fathers who write to "The Times," or even as much as medical experts, about the opportunities out there. I can assure the House that it is not entirely limited to young soldiers. Other theatres of war besides Germany present equally bad, and probably worse, opportunities, and if the attempt is to stop us from sending young soldiers to Germany, I say that it is ill-timed, because our commitments are such that we have to send them.
I wish to conclude by saying that, in so far as the Public Accounts Committee's criticism is well founded, we are taking every possible step to remedy the situation. We are taking all disciplinary measures that we can think of to do that, and I do not know what other measures hon. Gentlemen would wish us to take. This does not affect the War Office alone, and we are considering, with the other Departments concerned, whether any further measures can be adopted to prevent goods from being available for barter. There is still a large quantity of cigarettes being sent out from this country today to British troops and civilian personnel. In so far as these goods are a drain on our dollar resources or provide an opportunity for illicit trading, we have to cut down the opportunities as much as we can, but there is a certain need of the Forces and the civilian per-

sonnel in Germany which we must meet, and below that line I do not think we could go.

Mr. Hollis: The Minister is now saying that the Government are taking all steps to stop barter, but on 1st July he said:
… I think that the introduction of the special currency vouchers has stopped all chances of it continuing."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st July, 1947; Vol. 439, c. 1126.]
"it" being the practice of exchange and barter. That is just our case against the Government.

Mr. Bellenger: The hon. Gentleman is linking up two things. I reiterate that the new vouchers have stopped currency transactions, which fall upon the Army Vote, but the goods which can still be bought from the canteens with B.A.F.S.V. are still available for those in Germany to do anything they like with—either to smoke the cigarettes themselves, or to part with them to the Germans.

Mr. Hollis: I am aware of what the right hon. Gentleman is saying now, but my point is that it is different from what he said on the previous occasion.

Mr. Bellenger: I have not the time now to look up what I said then, and I will take what the hon. Gentleman says. I will make my position clear. In currency, we have stopped it, unless there may be a forgery. In goods we have not stopped it. What do hon. Gentlemen want me to do? Do they want me to cut off all canteen supplies to the troops, to stop all cigarettes going to the troops? That would be the way to do it, but it would affect the morale of the troops, and I would not be prepared to do it. We are taking honest and legitimate steps by disciplinary measures to prevent this from going on. Any officer or other rank using cigarettes or any other commodity which he gets from the canteen, in order to get what he wants, whether it be moral or otherwise, will find that he will be charged with an offence against the Army Act, and it will be a very serious offence. The consequences will be very serious to the officer or other rank. Any hon. Gentleman or right hon. Gentleman will know the difficulty of controlling all these offences among tens of thousands of troops. Apparently, we cannot stop, the illicit currency transactions taking place on the part of those who go abroad and give cheques. We can only bring


them before a court of justice. That is what we do in the Army. We shall attempt to do the same if we find that thing happening, or if we catch those who do it.
Finally, I hope that the House, after the rather long explanation I have given, will acquit me of the charge made by the hon. Member for Devizes that I do not understand what is happening in my own Department. I hope that I can appeal to all quarters of the House when I ask them to reject the implied criticism of those who moved this -Motion that I wilfully attempted to mislead the House.

4.53 p.m.

Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe: To one sentence of the right hon. Gentleman's speech I shall gladly respond, and that was when he asked us on this side of the House to take this matter seriously. To the next point I shall not respond. In my view, the right hon. Gentleman has completely failed to clear himself on either count of the charges brought against him by this Motion. I should like to examine the attempts which he has made so to do, following his order of the different parts of the Motion.
First, the right hon. Gentleman said that he had told the Financial Secretary not to make any mention of this part of the Supplementary Estimate in his introductory speech. One cannot help wondering, if the intention was that this matter should be brought fully before the Committee, why the right hon. Gentleman did not go on to ask his hon. Friend and fellow-Minister to inform the Committee that the Secretary of State himself, would deal with this very serious matter when we came to that part of the Debate. The next explanation was that the hon. Gentleman who raised the matter had not paid sufficient attention to the note that appears—and to which the right hon. Gentleman referred—on page 11 of the Supplementary Estimate. I gladly acquit the Members of the Committee of the right hon. Gentleman's strictures. I do so out of the mouth of one of his own colleagues, the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). If the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to look at the report of the Debate, he will find that, towards the end of

Column 104.8, the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne said:
I observe that in the Explanation on page 11, £20 million is said to be only part of the cost.
Then he quotes the sentence which the right hon. Gentleman quoted, and goes on to say, having quoted it and made it perfectly clear that the Estimate was dealing with the matter for a year:
£20 million is what it cost us in the current year, and I think we should like to know what has been the total cost.
After that, my hon. Friend who opened this Debate asked the very definite question—at the foot of column 1064:
The right hon. Gentleman has been asked whether that is the total loss, and that was the question I was trying to put,
and the right hon. Gentleman said:
Yes, Sir."—[OFICICLAL REPORT, 18th February, 1947; Vol. 433; c. 1048–1065.]
It had been made perfectly clear by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston), that what was in the mind of the Committee was not the estimate for the year, which was clearly stated in the Supplementary Estimate, hut the total cost, and the right hon. Gentleman said, "Yes, Sir." The right hon. Gentleman has not chosen to give any answer respecting that answer that he gave to the Committee on that night. Can he really he surprised, when he fails to give an answer at all, that we, who, after all, are still the guardians of the nation's finances, should put down a Motion regretting that he chose to take that path?
It does not stop there. On 26th February, with much beating of imaginary drums and blowing of his own trumpet, the right hon. Gentleman came to the House and said: "Whatever I did on the Committee stage, I am being frank with the House on the Report stage." That lovely phrase occurs in column 2220, if anybody would like to enshrine it in his commonplace book. Having clone that, the right hon. Gentleman said:
This £20 million is part of a larger sum, the greater part of which £38 million, was written off in the Army Account.
For once, and purely by mistake, the right hon. Gentleman was right. That was what had happened. Of course, he quickly altered it, in order to make himself wrong again. He said:
The total loss amounts to £58 million. I had not the honour of presenting the Estimates last year, but £38 million was


written off in last year's Estimates."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February, 1947. Vol. 433, c. 2212.]
Of course, there had not been any Estimates, and the right hon. Gentleman was quite wrong.

Mr. Bellenger: Of course, that was an unfortunate word to use. It was not the Estimates, but the Vote of Credit to which I was referring.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I quite agree, but it might have been better if the right hon. Gentleman had just paused for a moment. I should like him to follow the effect of his mistake. There was, as the right hon. Gentleman said in his speech, some question of Order in this matter. In column 2228, the Financial Secretary, again I am sure acting on the instructions of his chief, got up and made an objection as a matter of Order, to the fact that some questions were being asked about this matter of £38 million. The Financial Secretary having made this objection, Mr. Speaker said:
I am not quite clear where the other £08 million comes in. I think it was in the last Army Estimates, and therefore had been passed by this House and finished With."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February, 1947; Vol. 433, c. 2228.]
After the intervention of the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), Mr. Speaker went on:
I understand that the £38 million was passed in the last Estimates; the House has had an opportunity of debating the 438 million and the matter is therefore finished. I understand that is what the Secretary of State has now said."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 26th February. 1947; Vol. 433, c 2229.]
On the point of Order raised by the noble Lord, Mr. Speaker said that he understood that the right hon. Gentleman had said that the matter was raised in last year's Estimates. Well, the right hon. Gentleman can have it either way. Either he was in such a muddled state of mind about this that he did not know whether he had presented an Estimate or not, or else he did know that there had not been an Estimate. At any rate, look at the result. A point of Order is raised. Mr. Speaker says, "Well, of course, if this matter has been discussed in last year's Estimates I am not going to have another discussion," and no probing took place. After what I have said took place on the i8th, we have discussion smothered in this way by a point of Order following what

the right hon. Gentleman had said about Estimates that did not exist.

Colonel Wigg: In giving his Ruling, Mr. Speaker did not say that the matter had been discussed nor that the matter had been raised. He said that the matter had been passed.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The hon. and gallant Member is quite wrong. Mr. Speaker said:
I understand that the £08 million was passed in the last Estimates; the House has had an opportunity of debating the £38 million and the matter is therefore finished." —[OFRICIAL REPORT. 26th February, 1947: Vol. 433, c. 2229.]
That was the point that was made perfectly clear—that the House, according to what the right hon. Gentleman had said, had had the opportunity of debating it, and therefore could not debate it again. That is the position.
I will now examine what has taken place on both dates. I quite agree that today the right hon. Gentleman has given us after careful study an exact account of what took place on the Army Appropriation Account, but the relevant point is that the Army Appropriation Account was signed by Sir Eric Speed on 24th December, 1946, and had been before the right hon. Gentleman since approximately that time. When one finds once that an answer is given in this way which has the result of damping down discussion, it is a difficult matter to let it pass, but when one finds it repeated—I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman; could he understand any Opposition that was doing its duty not asking the House to regret that on the first occasion no explanation is given when it is followed by a second occasion such as I have described? I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, having now seen the full picture, will withdraw his Amendment and join the House in the regret that is expressed in the Motion. I gather that there is not much danger of that. At any rate, some time we may get an explanation which embraces these unanswerable points which rest not on any opinion of mine but on the cold print of the OFFICIAL REPORT of this House.
The explanation of the right hon. Gentleman today reminded me of nothing so much as the remark of a famous Lord Chancellor, Lord Westbury, when he was referring to the words of Bishop Wilberforce. He said:


A well lubricated set of words A sentence so oily and saponaceous that no one could grasp it.
As to the qualities which were not present in the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman today, every one of my hon. and right hon. Friends will concede him all the qualities which Lord Westbury was prepared to concede to the Bishop of Oxford.
As to the other part of the Motion, I would express our universal agreement with the conclusions of the Committee on Public Accounts. The importance of this is not so much the fact that we have demonstrated that it is not as easy to mislead the House, as the right hon. Gentleman has found it easy to attempt. The importance of this discussion is that the House has demonstrated once again that it is determined to have control and to criticise the finances of this country. It is quite easy to talk, as right hon. Gentlemen opposite have so often talked, about finance as being an accumulation of meaningless symbols. We know that is not the case in regard to the matter before the House. We know that the materials—the tobacco and food which form the subject matter of these things we are considering—have been in the main purchased by dollars which this country could ill spare, and it is in the failure of the right hon. Gentleman's Department to have any early and sufficient inquiries into this matter that they have contributed in no mean way to the difficulties under which we are suffering. As my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury inferred, the amount involved from the point of view of dollars alone in these matters is probably more than twice what will be saved by the restrictions on newsprint for 10 years. I can only suppose that the right hon. Gentleman is very glad that these restrictions are coinciding with the final discussion on this matter.
Let us just consider on what it rests. First of all, the excuse on which the right hon. Gentleman prefers to stand is that it was only after a period that this could be deducted. We have had that, but let us get the facts clear. One of the right hon. Gentleman's more contradictory explanations was that this started in Holland in the days of the Coalition Government. Surely, after it started in Holland somewhere about the end of 1944 he had at any rate a period which one would have

thought even his administration at the War Office would have found sufficient to examine this matter? But that was the position. The War Office explained before the Public Accounts Committee that the accumulation of surplus marks first came to their notice about the middle of January, 1946. That was not the December; it was the October or November total. Assume that up to that time the right hon. Gentleman has every excuse and has time on his side, as he has been so anxious to claim. They learned by 1st February that the surplus had trebled itself. Proposals for vouchers were approved by the Financial Secretary to the War Office, then the right hon. Gentleman, on nth March, and it was not until 1st August that they were brought into operation in Germany and, some three months later, in Austria.
Let us see what was said. The sale of postal orders had been limited in November, 1944, and again later, I think in January, 1945, showing that it was known that this was the method of clearing the gains that were made in this way. It was not until March, 1946, 15 months later, that the sale of postal orders was stopped. If it could be stopped as it was in March, 1946, the right hon. Gentleman's red herring about unkindness to the troops drops out of the path. It was stopped then, therefore it could have been stopped earlier; therefore that excuse goes. The War Office agreed in evidence, as is noted in paragraph 24, that the sales of the postal orders might have been stopped at an earlier date, and as I have indicated, after the proposals for vouchers had been approved they were not introduced until 1st August, 1946. Why? Because the right hon. Gentleman thought that there should be two months' notice.
Now the Committee say—and again I gather that on mature reflection the right hon. Gentleman agrees with them—that that idea of two months' notice arose largely from the reluctance to introduce at short notice a scheme which would have rendered valueless much of the currency in the hands of the troops. That is the explanation. That is why two months' notice was given. Why? If a large amount of that currency had not been legally acquired, why two months' notice should have been given in order to dispose of illegal gains and make it easy for their


disposal, I frankly cannot fathom. The Committee say, and I gather that the right hon. Gentleman agrees with them, that they doubt whether the introduction of a scheme with the object of restricting undesirable practices would, in fact, have created much difficulty. I think the right hon. Gentleman's present agreement with the view of the Committee could have been anticipated, with great saving to his country and to our finances. Then, after that two months, another three months was given to those who were operating in Austria. Again why? I could not, frankly, find in the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman any real excuse for that action.
On all these points, all of which are mentioned in the report, all of which stand out, there was ample opportunity for earlier action on the part of the right hon. Gentleman in this matter; and we have been quite without excuse today for the failure to take that action. But let me put to the House what in my view is the most important aspect of the matter—

Major Bruce (Portsmouth, North): Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman permit me—

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I do not think so, thank you very much. I rather want to make this point which is important. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will look at paragraph 44, he will see the importance of the point. The Committee say:
There was no general realisation of the fact that such transactions would result in a loss to the United Kingdom, and no general condemnation of these practices by public opinion in the Army.
The points I want to make—and then I will willingly give way to the hon. and gallant Gentleman—are these: I think it is almost incredible, and very difficult to find any explanation for the fact, that there was no general realisation that these transactions would result in a loss to the United Kingdom. That was a problem first for the right hon. Gentleman and then for the War Office to appreciate. When they appreciated it, it was a simple problem of Service public relations such as we are all accustomed to deal with—

Mr. Callaghan: No.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: And in which we have all taken part. The other point is that there was no general condemnation of these practices by public opinion in the Army. That, again, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, is a matter not only of public relations but of organisation and right leadership, and it was for the War Office, realising the problem, to see that that general condemnation should have been created. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman; I am not here for a moment to say that there is a low standard; I am here to say that there is a standard which can be appealed to and made high if the right steps are taken, and it was the absence of taking those steps that we are pointing out today.

Mr. Bowles: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman two questions? First, why is he confining his remarks altogether to the Army? He has said nothing whatever about the Control Commission. Secondly, did he or did he not see any of this going on in Europe when he was there for so many months, and did he report it?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I will answer that, but would the hon. and gallant Member for North Portsmouth (Major Bruce) first like to put his question?

Major Bruce: indicated dissent

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am not sure it the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) was in when his first point was mentioned?

Mr. Bowles: I have been in the Chamber all through the Debate.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Then he will remember it. The Army were acting as bankers for the other Services, and they were dealing with the organisation. With regard to the second question, at Nuremberg the total British strength with me was under too, and I certainly did not see any signs of it amongst them. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that there was a very small British unit in the American zone where I was. I did not see anything.

Mr. Bowles: I am not reflecting on any member of our legal team at all; I was asking the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he saw any of it going on when he was there.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Apart from 10 days in Berlin when we were settling the indictment in October, 1945, I was in the American zone with only about too British troops, and I did not see any of it. Can I answer the hon. and gallant Member for North Portsmouth now?

Major Bruce: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has said that in all these matters my right hon. Friend has been negligent, and he specifically raised the question of the surplus postal orders. Would he explain to the House why it took until 19th January, 1945, for it to be brought home to the Government of that day that a surplus of postal orders was likely to arise? There was a Supreme Headquarters memorandum issued in September, 1944, which drew attention to that state of affairs.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The hon. and gallant Gentleman will find in the Report—I think I have the dates right—that it was noted in November, 1944; action was adopted in January, 1945, and the immediate result from the second limitation was to cut down the amounts sent back; that is, limiting the postal orders to the amount of pay drawn at the pay table resulted in the average monthly sales to the British Forces dropping from 17s. 6d. to 8s. a head. I do not think the hon. and gallant Gentleman was here when my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury dealt with the position that arose in Holland, and that made the matter become clear.

Major Bruce: rose

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I have given way three times and I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will allow me to finish my speech. He knows as well as anyone else that the tempo slightly alters if one answers too many questions. I have said, and no hon. Gentleman has taken me up on these two points, that it is a bad thing that there was no general realisation of the fact that these transactions would result in a loss to this country and, secondly, that there was no general condemnation of these practices among public opinion in the Army. We say on these benches that that is a simple example of bad Administration. Every trickle of incompetence which goes on unchecked becomes a torrent of inefficiency, such as we have seen here. It is an example of the general complaint that whenever any-

thing that may be tinged with unpopularity arises, this Government never do today what they can put off till tomorrow. Inefficiency the House can accept, procrastination it is getting used to, but tergiversation it will not forgive, and that is what we have seen in this matter.

5.20 p.m.

Colonel Wigg: This problem can be approached from two angles, and it would seem that the Opposition have chosen to attack the Secretary of State for War rather than learn the lessons focused by the loss of this £58 million. It, can be explained in terms of what happened before and after this Government took over. I suggest that there was plenty of warning for the War Office, as to what was likely to happen if we found ourselves with Forces occupying enemy territory. There were considerable losses at the end of the last war. The Secretary of State for War himself in the first Debate on the loss of the £20 million pointed out the losses in the last war and said that there had been losses as late as 1935 in Hong Kong. I remember in Constantinople in 1922 the troops did a considerable amount of useful work from their point of view not only in changing British sterling into Turkish lira and back again, but also into Deniken and Wrangel notes. In the early days of our occupation they even used the labels torn from condensed milk tins.
I think it is most important to realise that the imperfect state of the financial organisation of the War Office was well appreciated after the last war. Sir Charles Harris, as I have mentioned on previous occasions, was constantly pointing out to successive Secretaries of State that the system of accounting in the Army as revealed in the first world war showed that in fact, as it was ordinarily understood, there was no accounting but little more than fidelity checks and assessment of entitlement. When, during the first world war, great industrialists came into the War Office and asked for accounts, there were none. After the end of that war recommendations were made, and a committee was set up by the Secretary of State for War, which resulted in the setting up of the Corps of Military Accountants. It was the effect of the Geddes Axe and the actions of the Conservative Secretary of State for War, Sir John Laming


Worthington-Evans, which hamstrung this development. The report before us makes it quite clear that if we want to assign the responsibility we must look at the advice given at the War Office and to Commanders-in-Chief in the Field. True, the political responsibility has to rest with the Secretary of State—but if the House turn to page 5 of the Report the specific question is put, who is responsible? And the answer is given: "The Commander-in-Chief." In Germany the Commander-in-Chief was ordered by a brigadier called the deputy paymaster-in-chief, and he was responsible for a failure to apprehend what was going on in 1945. His immediate departmental chief at the War Office was the chief paymaster holding the rank of general. It would be a waste of time at this date to try to pinpoint responsibility, but I wish to call the attention of the House to the recommendation of the Lawrence Committee in 1924:
The present method of obtaining officers for the Royal Army Pay Corps would obviously be unsuitable to the requirements of the new accounting force.
It goes on to say:
It was laid down as far back as 1919 that future entrants to the Royal Army Pay Corps would be required to give evidence of having reached a standard of efficiency"—

Squadron-Leader Fleming: What was the date of that Report?

Colonel Wigg: It was 1924. The recommendation was made that financial advisers should have a certain standard of professional efficiency but, in the sacred name of economy, Conservative Administrations preferred to carry on a hand to mouth policy and one can be certain that the chief paymaster at the War Office at the time of these happenings and the deputy paymaster in the field were not men who had been adequately trained in economic and financial affairs.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: On a point of Order. Has this really anything to do with the Debate?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): the hon. and gallant Member for Dudley (Colonel Wigg) is presumably suggesting how matters of this kind could arise, and I hops is coming to the Report.

Colonel Wigg: As I have already said, the members of the Public Accounts Committee asked one specific question in their endeavours to fasten responsibility and I am dealing with that point. It is a fruitless procedure to spend a considerable amount of time lambasting the Secretary of State for War. It is of more importance to find out if an important part of the Army in peace and war is so run that we have the best possible Army. These senior officers, whose responsibility was to give advice to the commander-sin-chief in the field, were utterly and completely incompetent, not from any fault of their own, but because they were square pegs in round holes. I do not wish to detain the House too long, but if one looks at the problem in its setting, one sees first that the War Office failed to learn the lessons of the last war. As I have said they failed to appoint competent officers to the staff of the commander-in-chief or the War Office at home, and when it became clear that things had seriously gone wrong and there had been failure at a high level at the War Office to take the steps which should be taken to put the matter right. I do not think responsibility can fairly be placed on the Government, because the original steps had not been taken, and taken in time, to prevent this loss would have to have been taken certainly by the middle of 1945.
On the question of personal responsibility of the Secretary of State himself, I think it is true that the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) was technically right when he dealt with the question on the discussion of the Estimates. But I believe the case is that the Secretary of State failed to draw a distinction between Estimates and a Vote of Credit. Perhaps in looking at HANSARD after a lapse of four months one can hold him guiltless. I do not think it was by deliberate intention—or the right hon. and learned Gentleman must think that the Minister's powers of pulling fast ones was so great that he hoped to get away with another £38 million when he had disclosed £20 million. Personally, I do not think the Secretary of State is guilty; even if he is, it is a profitless business to push that to far. It seems to be symptomatic of the political schizophrenia from which the party opposite suffer


that they ignore the real lessons of these happenings because they are too happy with the lambasting of the Secretary of State for War. I feel that the more informed section of the party opposite will he concerned, as my hon. Friends here are, with drawing the correct lesson from the losses in order to prevent any such happening again, although one hopes that the circumstances will never arise. We should be using this occasion to scrutinise the financial control of the War Office and the control of finance at lower formation levels, in order that we can obtain the best method of organisation possible.
I hope that when the Financial Secretary replies, he will go a little further than the Secretary of State for War has gone, and will indicate that the overall lessons revealed by these losses have, in fact, been realised. I do not ask him to set up committees but I ask that he and his military advisers shall go back and read the Reports, look at some of the statements made after the last war, look at the lessons which were learned then, and see why they were not put into operation. I hope also he will realise that as we have limited sources of manpower, and our equipment is not as great as we would like, it is, therefore, vital that we, as a nation, should make the best possible use of the Armed Forces we have got. One never knows when the time may come along when they will suddenly be charged with the task of meeting an emergency. I will be frank and say, although I hesitate to prophesy, that if that happens, it will reveal serious organisation weaknesses.
I am conscious that I am trying your patience to much, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and that you think that I am wandering too far from the subject of our Debate. My excuse, however, is that those of us who have served in the lower levels of the Army know only too well that in the days of peace, when interest in the Army was not so great as in war, the tentacles of financial control reach right down, and "Do not" is present all the time. I hope that the Secretary of State will realise that the loss of this 58 million is an expensive lesson, which he and his advisers must learn to the best advantage. I would not be so cynical as to say that if they had learned the lesson, that sum would be well spent. It is a very high price to pay

for any lesson, but I am certain that this Debate will not have been without value if the Secretary of State will do as I ask.

5.33 p.m.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I think the whole House will agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Dudley (Colonel Wigg) that this particular instance of the trouble which we are discussing today arose in the middle of 1945, and that the individual responsible is some high official at the War Office [HON. MEMBERS: "1944."] I think that the hon. and gallant Member said 1945. If he said 1944, the point I wish to make is that throughout the speech of the Secretary of State for War four months ago, and again this afternoon, he adopted the attitude that he was a novice attempting to grapple with this tremendous problem. That was the implication of his statement. I put it to him, with great respect, that a lot of experience had been gained in the previous three or four years. I put to him the question, Why was not proper advantage taken of that experience in order to ensure that this particular instance did not arise? On page 26 of the report, under the heading "Part 2—Background," there appears in the last sentence of Paragraph 5:
In North Africa and Italy during the recent war there was speculation, but it was kept in hounds by the restrictions imposed.
That, I think, answers the point which the hon. and gallant Member for Dudley has made. As long as the Coalition Government were in office, and the War Office was being administered by them, then control was kept on this speculation and on this form of currency leakage. The noble Lord the Member for Paisley (Viscount Corvedale) will remember the difficulty in connection with this problem which we encountered in 1940–41 when we went to Abyssinia, and later in Libya. There was a difficulty in North Africa and again in Italy, but these problems were tackled and dealt with, and I think that a number of distinguished high officers and officials tendered their resignations over this problem. It has, in fact, been faced up to previously, and by and large, as this Report shows, there was a method used to tackle it. As we had had all that experience in the Mediterranean, North Africa, etc., why was it not used in North-West Europe? Who is responsible? Someone must be. The Secretary of State stood up and answered these


charges four months ago. Why did he not use the experience we gained in wartime in order to see that these tremendous losses did not occur again?
It is stated on page 27 of the Report:
From 16th July, 1945, each Allied Commander became responsible for his own troops
One know that all these things went on long before any individual commander took over. It is stated, on page 29 of the Report in Paragraph 13 (n) that there was some difficulty because American canteens were used. Again, was it worth incurring a loss of £59 million because there was difficulty over American canteens? It seems to me a pretty high price to pay for reverse Lend-lease, or whatever it is called today. It is stated, page 29, Subparagraph (o) that:
The novelty of the 'currency' for which H.M. Government was making itself responsible was such that, at the request of the War Office, the Treasury obtained the personal approval of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
When the loss is over £50 million apparently we get the Chancellor of the Exchequer called in. Why was he not called in before? He was not called in by the Board of Trade over the loss we suffered in rubber, but he is called in about the loss of more than £50 million in this particular item. The Secretary of State pointed out that inadequate action was taken, and taken too late. We want to know why use was not made of the wartime experience, why this vast sum of money, even in a Socialist Utopia, was allowed to be spent, and why use was not made of this experience in the Mediterranean and North Africa to stop this particular loss occuring?

5.37 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Hamilton: As a Member of the Public Accounts Committee and an old soldier, I naturally took a good deal of interest in this case. There has been a great tendency to take an entirely unbalanced view of it, and I would try to restore a balanced view. The first element which led to this trouble was certainly one which has often occurred in the years gone by, that is to say, a great difference between the official rate of exchange and the actual rate that could be obtained when dealing in real goods. I do not quite agree, however, with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Dudley (Colonel Wigg) when he says that the

same thing has occurred before. I do not think that that is really the case, because there are two elements in this case which make it quite different from previous instances. One is the magnitude of the scale on which this speculation took place, and the other is the fact that we were dealing with a country which was absolutely and completely down and out, so that the currency was virtually of no value.
As regards the scale of operations, I need only remind the House that the strength of our Forces was not far short of a million, and that the difference in the rate of exchange was in some cases as much as between £1=40 marks and£1=10,000 marks, so that theoretically a man could turn £1 into £250 or £1 worth cigarettes into £250. Of course it was not often that that actually happened, because there were restrictions which prevented it, but the scope was enormous. Then there is this question of the marks which were accumulated, and which were of no value because there was nothing we could get out of Germany in return for them. Germany was down and out. If there was anything we could buy from Germany such as timber, the credit for that had to go against the large sums which we were spending on feeding Germany—the £80 million that we spent on providing her with all manner of materials.
It has been suggested that this loss might be regarded as a future claim on Germany to be made good in some dim and distant future, but it would have to be such a dim and distant future that I think the authorities were quite right to deciding to write it off. More than that, it would be hardly fair on Germany because this accumulation occurred when we were in control and when the Germans had no control at all. That argument would not apply in the case of the Dutch because they were a sovereign State and were in control. In fact, negotiations began in connection with the £13 million worth of guilder and it was suggested that the Dutch should accept some responsibility; but, as the records show, it was decided to include this with a whole number of other financial negotiations with Holland, and there was a general write-off of £90 million technically owed by them to us, and that included this £13 million.
I would now like to get to the point which I think is fundamental. It is that when mankind is confronted with an en-


tirely new situation he learns in time how to deal with it, but he does not know at once. Innumerable examples of that can be quoted. I need only instance the methods of financing the two world wars. Nobody will deny how infinitely better we managed the business this time, compared with last time. The rates of interest on our loans were far lower. As far as I know, we avoided some of those terrible ramps which took place on the first occasion where some of the loans consisted of quite fictitious money created by the banks and handed out to wealthy clients to lend to the Government. We got rid of that kind of thing and we probably saved thousands of millions by doing it. We might turn that round and say that in the first world war, thousands of millions of pounds were lost by not doing that. We do not say that the Chancellors of the Exchequer and other Ministers in the first world war were utterly incompetent and lacking any sense of public duty. We say that they had not had time to learn how to cope with such an entirely new situation. I consider that exactly the same thing took place here.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman not realise that the situation had already arisen in various countries which I named? It was not a new situation as far as Germany and Holland were concerned.

Lieut.-Colonel Hamilton: I thought I had made it clear it was new in two respects: one, in the magnitude of the possibilities of speculation and, the other, in the fact that it was utterly impossible to use this currency. In other cases it was possible. For instance, in Italy the lira was used to pay for goods and services supplied by the Italians. It was not left uselessly on our hands. This was the first occasion on which enormous sums of foreign currency were left in the hands of the British Government who found them utterly useless.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: The money could still be used to pay the Germans.

Lieut.-Colonel Hamilton: The Public Accounts Committee has, quite rightly, pointed out the way in which steps might have been taken earlier to minimise this loss. I think we were quite right to do that because our target must be per-

fection, though we know that we will never get perfection. Always there are bound to be lapses of some kind. We must ask ourselves whether reasonable competence was displayed. I consider that in this case it was. I would like to draw attention to the positive side, because, so far, we have hardly had anything but the negative side. Steps were taken to restrict the amount that troops could change when they came back to this country, and the value of postal orders they could withdraw. Though I must admit responsibility for the paragraph which speaks of "omission" in rather a sweeping way, I must agree that I think we were too sweeping in that statement.
When the real trouble began, forthright and novel action was taken. The War Office financial authorities broke out on to what was for them or any Allied country an entirely new line. It had been taken to some extent by the German Government but not by us or any other Allied Government. It was an entirely new experiment. It is easy to say now that it was all perfectly obvious that that was the thing to do and that it would achieve the results required. But it was not at all easy to see then. The Americans, who I do not think are regarded as particularly backward where finance is concerned, took six weeks longer than we did to put any such scheme into operation, and the popular guess is that their losses were something of the order of £150 million. Furthermore, as we have been told, their notes were not good enough to prevent forgery and that meant additional losses for them. The French took longer still before they made a similar change.
I would like to touch on another very important point. The impression has been given that this £59 million is a national loss, a loss to the country. That, of course, is entirely incorrect. Only a comparatively small part of it is a national loss. Most of it is an internal transfer of money. All of us as taxpayers are a little poorer; perhaps hundreds of thousands of soldiers are a bit richer.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Can we ignore the fact that it is quite clearly laid down that the taxpayer lost £59 million? Whether some people got away with that money, has nothing whatever to do with this.

Lieut.-Colonel Hamilton: The hon. and gallant Member has completely confirmed


just what I was saying. Evidently he did not appreciate the point I was making. I admit that the taxpayer has lost £59 million, but to whom has he lost it? He has lost the greater part of it to the soldier. It is an internal transfer of money. I admit that some of it is a national loss.

Mr. Beswick: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman agree that it is an exactly similar transfer when a burglar gets away with the property of a citizen?

Lieut.-Colonel Hamilton: If the hon. Member suggests that the citizen is one nation and the burglar another, I say that that is an entirely incorrect simile. If he suggests that they belong to the same nation, then I say that it is the same. Let me come back to my point. Some of it was a national loss in that we lost a certain quantity of tobacco and possibly chocolate and other things, which had to be bought with dollar exchange. But nobody will suggest that anything approaching £59 million worth of tobacco was involved. Of course not. It was very much smaller than that. There is another total loss in the fact that when members of the Forces bought cameras and goods of that kind, they were goods which might have been used by Germany for exports which could have been set off against the large sums spent by us on Germany. That is a very, very small loss compared with the total of £59 million involved.
The war cost us immense sums of money. We can look back on all manner of failures and disasters. It is easy now to show just how all these failures and disasters might have been avoided if so-and-so had had the sense to do this and somebody else had had the sense to do the other. Looking back on our own lives, I dare say that there is not one of us who cannot look back and say, "What a fool I was to do so-and-so at such a time." Generally speaking, we accept these losses and disasters as inevitable accidents of war, and the only point which we have to consider in regard to the matter we are now discussing is whether or not the Government were well served by their administrative officials. Speaking as a member of the Public Accounts Committee, which went into this very thoroughly, I say that, on the whole, they were well served, and that things

might have been very much worse had they not been well served.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I hope that the hon. and gallant Member for Sudbury (Lieut.-Colonel Hamilton), who has told the House that he was speaking as a member of the Public Accounts Committee, will not think me discourteous if I begin by inviting his attention to the conclusions of his own Committee, to which, as far as I am aware, he indicated no dissent. If he will look at paragraph 40 of this report, he will see that the Committee's conclusion was:
Your Committee wish to make it clear that the losses recorded in the Accounts are not.paper losses.

Lieut.-Colonel Hamilton: May I point out that I never said they were? They are all very real losses, but I am only saying that that loss was gained by other citizens.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I quite appreciate the subtlety both of that conclusion and, indeed, of the hon. and gallant Member who made it, but I think that in this matter, if it is to be considered sensibly, and if the Public Accounts Committee is to render a service to this House, if a member of that Committee does not regard the loss of £59 million as a loss, but regards is merely as a redistribution of wealth, it really would have been more suitable if he had recorded a dissenting voice in the Report and had not waited until this stage in order to put that view before the House. The Committee concludes its report with paragraph 45, which says:
Your Committee note that there was great difficulty in making British personnel in Germany appreciate the fact that any loss is incurred by paying in cigarettes or other goods for services rendered or for local products.
That difficulty is very clearly indicated when it appears to be shared by a member of the Committee which produced the report.

Lieut.-Colonel Hamilton: I think the hon. Member has completely misinterpreted and misquoted me. I never said that there was no loss, or that it was not a sad thing that these losses had occurred. I did not want to see the taxpayers losing money, but I was referring to the point made at the outset, I think by the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr.


Grimston), which gave the impression that this was a national loss, which reduced our dollar exchange. I am afraid the hon. Member cannot distinguish between the two cases which I described.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not want to go on reading aloud from the Report of the Committee, because the hon. and gallant Gentleman should be aware of it himself, but I must invite his attention to the last words:
When payment is made in marks for such services or products the cost falls on Germany, hut cigarettes and other goods, e.g., food, are provided by the United Kingdom, to a large extent out of the limited dollar resources of this country.
It is quite clear from that that the effect of these transactions is not, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman has seen fit to suggest, merely to redistribute wealth among British citizens, but, at any rate in part, to transfer charges which otherwise, and quite properly, would fall upon the German people on to the shoulders of the much-tried British taxpayer, and in those circumstances I regret that, as a member of the Public Accounts Committee, the hon. and gallant Member should have seen fit to suggest that there is any mitigation whatsoever of these offences. I do not think there is very much dispute on that side of the matter; at any rate, there should not be, since this report is perfectly clear, and it is, apparently, the Government's intention, if the Amendment on the Order Paper is taken into account, to accept that report. The only matter on which, as I understand it, there is dispute between the two sides of the House is whether the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State did or did not mislead the House, and I hope I may be allowed to say that, if the main subject matter of the dispute between the two sides of the House involves, as it does, the personal conduct of the right hon. Gentleman, it does seem a little strange that the right hon. Gentleman is not only not on the Front Bench at the moment, but has been absent from it for nearly an hour.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. John Freeman): Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to interrupt to state that my right hon. Friend left the House at the end of the speech of the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Dodds-Parker).

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the Under-Secretary says that, I will accept it from him, and if hon. Members opposite regard as an important distinction the difference between 40 minutes and an hour, I congratulate them upon their fine perception, and I only hope that, as a result of the messages that will, no doubt, be sent to the right hon. Gentleman, he will be able to get here inside the hour. I think we are entitled, when considering the treatment of this House by the right hon. Gentle man, to bear in mind whether or not he has seen fit to be present when his own conduct is under discussion, and that appears to me to be a very material consideration. I also regret very much the tone of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. All hon. Gentlemen, and even right hon. Gentlemen, make mistakes, and if the right hon. Gentleman had come to the House and had said that, in the heat and excitement of the Debate, he had unwittingly misled the House, I am certain that hon. Members on both sides would have understood and been ready to forgive, because no one seeks to set up for a Minister a criterion of infallibility. As I understood the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, he did not apologise or regret it, but merely said that, as the House was discussing Supplementary Estimates, he would have been out of Order in mentioning the £38 million.
That might well be a valid argument for refusing to answer at all the questions addressed to him by the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) as to whether or not the £20 million was the whole total. It would have been perfectly easy to have said, "I cannot answer that question without transgressing the Rules of Order," but, surely, the Rules of Order did not compel him to give a misleading answer? That is an argument for giving no answer, but it is no argument whatever for giving an answer which was wrong according to information which had been in the custody of the right hon. Gentleman's Department for the best part of two months, and which bore absolutely no possible connection with the truth of the matter. It is quite clear—and the right hon. Gentleman himself made no attempt to argue it —that he misled the House. It seems to be extremely regrettable that, in these circumstances, the right hon. Gentleman did not take advantage of the generosity which this House always extends to those


who admit they have erred, and say that no was sorry, and that it would not occur again. His failure to do so leaves the doubt in our minds that if he regards a speech of that kind as right—as he appears to do—and if he regards the giving of wrong information as right, we have no guarantee whatsoever that the same thing will not occur again and again so long as he remains in his present office.

6.2 p.m.

Mr. James Callaghan: The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) has been as heavy-footed as usual—[HON. MEMBERS: "Worse."] I will accept that correction; he has been worse than usual, and he is making out of this so-called attempt to mislead the House, something which really will not bear the weight of his heavy feet upon it. Let us examine what actually happened. My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), during his speech on 18th February, was in no doubt at all that the £20 million did not represent the full amount of the losses. What he said was—and this has been quoted by the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe):
It appears to me that the £20 million is not the whole of the sum which we are called upon to pay in order to subsidise and support this black market; £20 million is what it cost us in the current yearֵ…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th February, 1947; Vol. 433, C. 1048.]

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Will the hon. Gentleman give way for a moment?

Mr. Callaghan: Not at the moment; I will give way in due time, when I have made my point. When one looks at the question that the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) asked my right hon. Friend, it is clear that it was put in the form of an interjection, and my right hon. Friend got up and said, "Yes, Sir." That is the position as recorded. It is quite clear that is so. My right hon. Friend is much more experienced in these matters than I am, and he would probably not feel so confused at the interruption as I should. What I am saying is that when, in response to an interjection in a winding up speech, one makes a comment like that, is it really a sensible thing to hang

the whole terms of a censure Motion on it, especially when one remembers that, eight days later, my right hon. Friend came down to this House, without any prompting, and said that he had made a mistake, and that the £20 million represented only the sum in the current year?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Member has based his justification for suggesting that the House was not misled on the fact that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) was not. The explanation he has given as to why the right hon. Gentleman said what he did may be a very valid one; it may be a commonsense one, but the hon. Member must remember that his right hon. Friend did not offer that as his excuse this afternoon.

Mr. Callaghan: In view of the terms of the Motion that has been put down, I do not think that my right hon. Friend hit out at the Opposition as much as he should have done. He ought to have been much more on the attack. Had I been in his position, I certainly should not have apologised.

Mr. Bellenger: Perhaps the House will allow me to intervene. The assumption is that in saying, "Yes, Sir," right out of its context, I wilfully misled the House. I knew that the total cost was more than £20 million, but the question put by the hon. Member for Westbury was:
The right hon. Gentleman will observe that the explanatory note with these Estimates says that this loss of £20 million arose during the current year.
That was in my mind when I replied. It is true that he also said:
The right hon. Gentleman has been asked whether this is the total loss, and that was the question I was trying to put."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th February, 1947; Vol. 433, c. 1064.]
But, in giving the answer, "Yes, Sir," I meant that the loss for the current year was £20 million. Had I attempted to tell the House that the £20 millions was the total loss, I should have been misleading it. My answer must be read in its context with the question, and the way in which I gave it.

Mr. Callaghan: I certainly accept that explanation, and I think that anybody who did not want to make party capital out of it would do the same. In response


to an interjection made during the peroration of his speech, my right hon Friend got up and said "Yes, sir." It was an answer on which alternative interpretations could be placed. I re-emphasise the fact that my right hon. Friend came down on the next stage of these Estimates and said that the amount involved was £58 million. As so much is being hung on the fact by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Dodds-Parker) that we had the experience of Italy, and other countries into which we went, to go on, let me say this to him. Of the £38 million about which we are talking this afternoon, £13 million is in respect of those losses. We are not dealing only with events which occurred in Germany; we are dealing with events which he sought to excuse and which account for one-third of the amount. I do not want to spend a lot of time on that, but I want to bring out three points this afternoon.
The first point is in relation to the so-called losses. Here, I think, the Public Accounts Committee have not been as clear as they might have been. In their report there is a heading entitled "Unrecorded Losses." What is the nature of those losses? It is simply this. When we went into Germany, we printed marks on the American printing presses, and we paid our soldiers those marks instead of sterling. We expected that two things were going to happen, first, that some of those marks would come back to us through our canteens in the shape of payments for tooth-paste, razor blades and chocolate, and, secondly, that the balance of those marks would go into the German economy through transactions with the Germans. What we were doing, in fact—and I am not judging the morality of the thing this afternoon; I have my own views about it—was foisting inflation on the German people to the extent of printing marks outside their country, and intending that they would eventually trickle into the Germany economy. To that extent, the British taxpayer and the British Government were going to be relieved of the responsibility for paying the British soldier his wages—to the extent that the marks found their way into the German economy and were, therefore, not claimed back again by N.A.A.F.I. from the War Office. That is the extent of the loss we have suffered—the extent to which we have not been able to make the German people pay the amount that we thought

should have been absorbed into the Germany economy.
In that sense, there is no loss at all. What has happened is that the British taxpayer has had to pay in sterling, the full amount of the British soldier's wages, when, under the arrangement made by the Allied Control Council, we only expected to have to pay a part of it in sterling, and that the rest was going to be paid by the German people. I have my own views on that sort of thing. I believe it was a highly immoral procedure to inflate the German currency in that way, instead of putting in our claim for reparations against the German people in the proper legal way. My view is that that is what should have been done, but instead we have been caught. The basic immorality arose at the first stage when we decided to print marks and to put them into the German currency, without any expectation that they would come from any goods which the German people would have. It is on that point where the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis), for whose intellect I have a great respect, went wrong. That is the type and the nature of the loss, and one cannot possibly ever measure it. One obviously cannot measure the extent to which one has got back marks which might have been spent with the Germans and which might have remained in German hands, and it is that first point which I wish to bring out.
I think the War Office have a pretty good record in this connection, which is borne out when one looks at the programme of events and sees that we took the initiative in this matter, that we had to wait for a reply from the Americans, that we had introduced a scheme long before the Americans introduced theirs, and that our losses are only a small proportion of the American losses. I see that Sir Eric Speed in his evidence said that he had seen a report to the effect that the American losses were £250 million as against our £59 million. Let us be clear on this point. Having been caught, it is fairly obvious that we took the proper steps long before the Americans did, and if the purpose of the Opposition this afternoon is to demonstrate that we got on with the job quickly, they certainly are doing that. It has been pointed out that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not brought in until we had lost something like £50 million. Of course, that


is not true. Let us look at the sequence of events. This matter came to light in February. On 5th March a meeting of departments was held at the War Office. The Americans were approached on 9th March. The Financial Secretary approved the scheme on 11th March, and the Chancellor approved it on the 18th March. Why did it take so long to put it into operation? The answer lies in the difficulty of getting the sterling vouchers printed. It took us so long to get those sterling vouchers printed. Had we accepted the inferior copy of the sterling voucher which the Treasury advised the War Office to accept, we could have saved one month, but no more than that.
The sequence of events set out on pages 36 and 37 of the Second Report of the Public Accounts Committee makes it quite clear that there is only one month involved, because of the physical difficulties of producing the sterling vouchers and the plastic tokens which were involved. To that extent, one can say that the War Office should have taken the risk, and should have introduced the inferior voucher, which quite probably would have been forged. Many forgeries were going on, on the Continent in those days; the Americans have suffered badly, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Sudbury (Lieut.-Colonel Hamilton) has said, and we should probably have had to withdraw it. It might have saved one month's losses, but no more.
The Public Accounts Committee have been particularly sanctimonious in their conclusion in paragraph 45, where they say:
Your Committee understand that the practice of obtaining services and local products in return for goods and not by payment in marks is still prevalent, and they recommend that the appropriate authorities should take all necessary steps to stop this practice.
How does one stop the soldier from giving five cigarettes to his batman when he has done a job for him? That is the loss involved today. How does one stop the soldier from giving a bar of chocolate to a child whom he sees in the street? That is the loss involved. My right hon. Friend can continue giving instructions until the cows come home, but he will still not stop it. If the Public Accounts Committee had really got down to recommend-

ing to him what steps he might take in order to stop those transactions, they would have been doing a useful service, but this last recommendation is completely valueless. The situation arises because a willing buyer meets a willing seller. When one man has got chocolate and another man has a camera and they both want to exchange, there is no power on earth which will stop them, and the Opposition know that. There is no need for me to give them a lesson in elementary economics.
The real people we ought to get after are the Allied Control Commission and our own Control Commission in Germany. It is ridiculous to have fixed a rate of 40 marks to the £at a time when the mark was practically valueless. I took the trouble this afternoon to work out a few of the values. In May, a pound of butter was fetching 300 marks which, at our rate of exchange, is £7 10s. A pound of sugar was fetching 75 marks, or £1 17s. 6d. at 40 marks to the £. A pair of man's shoes was fetching 900 marks, or £22 10., and a man's woollen suit was fetching 2,500 marks, or £62 10s. What it amounts to is this. A packet of 20 cigarettes, in terms of marks, was worth to the soldier £4 sterling. How can we possibly prevent this sort of thing from going on when that situation arises? It is the gentlemen in the Control Commission whom we should tackle. I have no doubt about that at all. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War should not be the target for tonight; it should be somebody else. The whole basis of life in Germany at the moment is one of barter. The products of the factories in Germany are being bartered for raw materials. Those products are not being sold; they are going into the black market in exchange for raw materials, and the raw materials are going into the factories. And all the Public Accounts Committee can say amidst an economy conducted in that way, is that the Secretary of State should issue instructions saying that the Brtish soldier must not take part in it.

Mr. Nigel Birch: Surely, it is a little unfair to blame the Control Commission for the fact that the mark is valueless. The Control Commission has recommended hundreds of times that it should be given a real value. It has been held up by matters of high policy.

Mr. Callaghan: I am much obliged and I accept that correction. It is not the Allied Control Commission, but the Allied Control Council, which is the responsible body. I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for interrupting me. It is the Allied Control Council which has kept this absurd rate of exchange. It should be altered and then we would have an opportunity of dealing with the problem. If nothing is done my right hon. Friend will have no more success in the future in dealing with the barter problem—I think he has dealt with the currency problem—than he has had in the past.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. Niall Macpherson: If I understood the hon. Member for South Cardiff (Mr. Callaghan) correctly, his argument was, first, that there are no real losses to the taxpayers of this country, and, secondly, if there are, they could not have been prevented in a shorter time. He said that the losses were of our own making because we had created currency in Germany. Supposing we had paid all the soldiers in Germany in Reichsmarks, and they had converted back into sterling all that they were paid, still the amount of the loss would not have equalled the loss which we have actually incurred. That is where matters have gone wrong. There has been a perpetual inflation, and trafficking has been going on all the time. I would draw the attention of the House to observations which were made while the Public Accounts Committee was sitting. The following statement was made by a witness in answer to question 1368:
The broad picture is that we issued for current pay over this period about £20 million worth of marks and we got back about £60 minion worth of marks
The difference represents a very considerable loss to the taxpayer of this country. Now quite apart from the disclosed real loss—and it is a real loss—there has also been a very considerable concealed loss, as is brought out by the same witness in answer to Question 1619. He said:
If you assume an average strength during the period 1st March to 1st August, 1946, of 400,000 all ranks, the full pay entitlement worked out very roughly at £26 million for that period—full pay, if they had drawn everything. In point of fact, apart from advances for leave, and so on, they drew in the way of current pay somewhere about £4 million.

The balance of £22 million is paid in sterling in this country. In addition, much more has been paid in conversion of Reichsmarks into sterling than the total pay which was due. That is an indication of the losses. So that there is a concealed loss—if we are to accept what the witness said—during the period from 1st March to 1st August, 1946, estimated by him to be £9,000,000. If we take the period from 1st October, 1945, to 1st March, 1946, when there were on average twice as many troops in the country, and one can assume that, therefore, twice as much pay was due, it may well be that the concealed loss in those five months was twice as great, and that there is an additional concealed loss of £27 million that ought to be added on to the loss of £59,000,000 that has actually been revealed in this report.
The second point is a question of time —whether these losses could have been stopped earlier. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Sudbury (Lieut.-Colonel Hamilton) said this was an entirely new situation. But the Financial Commission were well alive to this problem. It had been discussed before we got into Austria or Germany. What changed the entire situation, quite apart from the losses that had arisen in Holland, was the cancellation of the non-fraternisation order in September, 1945. It was that which left the way wide open for barter. What could have been done? What was the reasonable thing to do? Here we are faced with an entirely new situation. Was the right hon. Gentleman merely to say he should wait to see what happened? That is, in fact, what he did. He waited until all the paymasters' accounts were consolidated and presented in February. In fact, he seems never to have called for accounts at all. They were presented at the War Office. Then it was suddenly realised something was going wrong. The accounts were brought to him, and then, of course, the fat was in the fire. Surely, he should have given an instruction that throughout accounts were to be examined monthly. It can hardly be said that that could not he done, because it was done. As soon as the difficulties came to light, then, within a few days, they got a report showing the losses had very considerably increased, up to 1st February, as compared with the losses up to 1st October previously.

Major Bruce: The hon. Gentleman says they have known of this business for some time. Will he say when 21 Army Group main headquarters or 21 Army Group rear headquarters—who were quartered at St. Paul's—first became aware of these illegal currency and postal order transactions?

Mr. Macpherson: I am advised that this was discussed at St. Paul's, in the days when the currency regulations for Germany and Austria were being proposed.

Major Bruce: Will the hon. Gentleman be more precise? It is a matter of some importance.

Mr. Macpherson: Of course, I cannot give the exact date. I think the House will agree that, whatever we may think about how little time might have been saved—during the second period when the bank notes had to be printed, agreements between the Allies had, apparently, to be obtained—during the first period up to 1st March, 1946, at any rate, the least the Government could have done was to have kept the situation, as they so often say, "constantly under review." There is one other point to which I feel I must refer, and that is the question of the attitude that is alleged to have been taken up throughout the Army. The Committee says:
There was no general realisation of the fact that such transactions would result in a loss to the United Kingdom.
Surely, the one great advantage that the Army has over all other institutions is that, whether there is realisation or not, it can give an order and can see, what is more, that that order is carried out. What efforts were made to ensure that the orders regarding barter and currency transactions were carried out? I think that one of the most revealing and astonishing admissions was that in which a witness said, in answer to question 1446:
I was talking to a senior officer this morning before I came here and he said he was in a port and found that 85 men had been refused exchange of their money and were staging a small not.
Well, the authorities gave way. There was a riot, there was a difficult situation. They said, as it were, "Really, we must not be too much troubled in these matters. We must maintain the morale of the troops in Germany. We must avoid these inconvenient disorders." What pitiable weakness this represents.

Lieut.-Colonel Hamilton: Surely, there is no evidence to say how these men were in possession of their marks? They may have been quite legitimately acquired. It does not follow that every one of the men had broken orders.

Mr. Macpherson: Presumably, the Paymaster-General's staff at the base were carrying out instructions, which were to investigate cases where £40 or more in Reichsmarks was offered for conversion. There must have been a prima facie case for investigating these matters. But they did not dare even to investigate.

Lieut.-Colonel Hamilton: Does the hon. Gentleman really think it is a practicable proposition, when there is a large body of men at a port waiting to go to Great Britain, to put everyone through a "third degree" and a long process of investigation?

Mr. Macpherson: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is quite entitled to make that point, but the witness, in the course of his evidence, said:
There was great anxiety about the losses.
Surely, they should have made some attempt to curtail them by taking disciplinary action sometime. If they had done that, if they had taken disciplinary action, I am sure the losses would never have been anything like what they are. It is idle to say, as was said in course of evidence, that it is an extremely difficult matter, when troops are about to be demobilised, to hold them. Of course it is inconvenient to hold them. It is a lot more inconvenient for the troops to be held for court-martial, if they have infringed some order. If there had been a clear indication by the Army that they would enforce this order—as the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Dodds-Parker) said it was enforced in other countries—we should not have had these difficulties.

Mr. Rees-Williams: One of the difficulties of dealing with this situation was that, in the American Army, these transactions were done officially, and machinery was laid on to permit the soldiers to send back marks to the United States. It was very difficult to get the ordinary "Tommy" to appreciate that what he did was a crime when the ordinary G.I. could do it.

Mr. Macpherson: Surely, the hon. Gentleman with his great experience knows


that there is one thing about an order—and that is that it should either be enforced or withdrawn. If we were in difficulties, surely we could have got into consultation with the Americans, so that we could all agree to a common policy, and then enforce it.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Beswick: I do not think I would be in Order in entering into a discussion on monetary theory with my hon. Friend the Member for South Cardiff (Mr. Callaghan), but I disagree with what he said about the origin of the money which we are discussing this evening. My hon. Friend said that the money which came back into this country was simply the money which had been printed on our own or American printing presses. The fact is that this was money over and above that which had been printed on our own presses. Indeed, in Question 1368 in the Report, it is stated that for one period only £20 million worth of marks had been issued as current pay, whereas in fact the authorities had received back £60 million worth of marks. It is that surplus which was eventually transferred into sterling, and which was used to buy goods here by people who had done nothing to produce those goods. To that extent, of course, it was a loss to the consumers of this country.
However, I do not want to suggest, or appear to support hon. and right hon. Members opposite in their suggestion, that there was deliberate misrepresentation by the Secretary of State for War as to the amount of money involved. I do not think there was any deliberate misrepresentation. On the other hand, it does seem to me that the Secretary of State failed to appreciate the urgency or the implications of what was going on. We have heard a lot of talk during this Debate about a loss of money. I think there was also a much more important loss in Germany as a result of this circulation of easy money. There was a loss of administrative energy; there was a loss of morale, consequent upon the ease with which men out there could buy various goods, both in our own canteens and from the Germans. It was that easy money which led to such a degeneration of morale in certain quarters, and which is probably the most serious loss of all. In the Public Accounts Committee the question was asked why the soldiers who were engag-

ing in these transactions were not court-martialled, and the answer is given in reply to question 1402:
public opinion in the Army would have been a little shocked if somebody was court-martialled when all ranks, including, very likely, the officers sitting on the court-martial, were doing the same thing.

Mr. Osbert Peake: What the hon. Member is reading now is not an answer by the witness but a question by myself.

Mr. Beswick: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. That is, in fact, a question by him, but the answer is: "That is true." The witness was saying that the question put by the right hon. Gentleman was, in fact, the truth; that the reason why these men were not being court-martialled was apparently because the rot had set in so deeply that even the officers on the court-martial were very likely engaged in these transactions, and they were therefore, reluctant to carry into effect the orders which had been issued. When the rot is so bad in the lower reaches it is only by action from the top that the situation can be repaired.
What happened when the matter was raised in this House? The question was raised in this House and the whole business was referred to by the Secretary of State for War as a "merry game" The charge that I make against the Secretary of State for War is that the levity with which he treated this matter in the first instance encouraged the consequent degeneration of moral atmosphere on the part of a number of people still out in Germany. As the House may remember, the other day I put a Question about the transference of certain property from Germany to this country. A Control Commission official had been charged with transferring property from Germany to this country; he was charged with the illegal export of silver, and he was sentenced to, I believe, a fine of 10s. A remark was then made by a member of the court that these transactions were no more serious than the breaking of the speed limit. Again, my charge is that the attitude which the Secretary of State adopted encourages precisely that kind of loose attitude on the part of officials in Germany at the present time. It is essential that some steps should be taken from the top to tighten the whole business up, in order that further degeneration shall not take place.
Finally, I wish to put one more question. It is widely reported—and I heard the report myself in the United States of America, which indicates that the report has circulated widely—that Criminal Investigation Department officials went to Germany to investigate the transactions that were taking place. It was not simply a question, as one of my hon. Friends has suggested, of packets of cigarettes being given to German people, or a bar of chocolate being given to a child in the street. The suggestion was that articles were being smuggled into Germany for the purpose of changing them into Germany currency, and then being changed back into sterling. And the transactions were on a large scale. The question I have to ask is: Were C.I.D. men sent out to Germany to make investigations on these matters? If they were sent out, was any report made? If any report was made, was that report acted upon? And if, as is alleged, those C.I.D. men were recalled because of the significance of some of the reports they were making, why were they recalled? If the whole story is without foundation, I shall be very grateful if the Secretary of State will deny it.

6.37 p.m.

Mr. Maude: I shall detain the House for five minutes only. I hope to employ the time well, because I believe —and that is why I remained persistently trying to catch your eye, Sir—having heard the Secretary of State for War make his intervention some little time ago in this Debate, to the whole of which I have listened, that the steps taken by my hon. Friends in putting down this Motion were right; that something was wrong, and that the House was either wittingly or unwittingly misled; that it was a grave matter that the House should have been misled, and unless,, when some final speech is made for the Government, something further is done to show that it is recognised that that really was wrong, then one would go away with the firm conviction and fear that such a thing might happen again—and I should hate it to happen, whoever was in power.
The hon. Member for South Cardiff (Mr. Callaghan) quoted from various parts of the OFFICIAL REPORT. I have noticed—and I am sure he has, too—particularly in our legal profession, that

there is nothing more dangerous, so far as the tribunal which is trying to ascertain the truth is concerned, than to have in front of it an advocate who reads only part of what is down on the shorthand note. I propose, therefore, to employ my remaining few minutes to developing this argument, and this argument only. On 18th February, 1947, the Secretary of State for War stood at that Box, knowing that this Appropriation Account was prepared, which had in it the grave loss of £39 million odd in addition to the £20 million about which he was then going to speak. He knew, as he stood at that Box, that that account had been signed on 24th December by Sir Eric Speed. But, of course, it was not published. It was not published and available to the public until much later, in April. There he stood, and the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) asked whether the £20 million was the total indebtedness, and agreed that it really did not seem likely. He then said:
All we can do about it now, is to pay up; but, at least, we are entitled to know how far it has gone, and I hope the Secretary of State will be able to tell us.
When the Secretary of State came to make his speech—I would point out that the HANSARD column reference figures are rather different from those in the Bound Volume—he said:
The main point of substance has been the loss of £20 million in relation to what one might call speculation by the troops in Germany and Austria, which resulted in the British Treasury being landed with a considerable number of marks and schillings. The hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) rightly picked on that point, as indeed, when the matter came to my attention when I was Financial Secretary it startled me. Although I have had some experience of the agility and as one hon. Gentleman called it, the "slickness" of the British Army in making a deal and making a profit out of that deal, I was not aware of anything like this. The strictures passed by the hon. Member for Westbury on His Majesty's present Government will not all reach the right mark because, it may interest him to know, a very large proportion—I cannot tell him how much—of these speculations occurred during the time of his own Government or of the National Government which preceded the present one. When our troops went into Germany—
Mr. GRIMSTON: The right hon. Gentleman will observe that the explanatory note with these Estimates says that this loss of £20 million arose during the current year. The right hon. Gentleman has been asked whether that is the total loss, and that was the question I was trying to put.


The answer by the Secretary of State was not "Yes, Sir." It is quite misleading to say that it was. It was a careful and detailed reply, namely:
Yes, Sir, the loss came into this year because the marks which have accumulated have to be dealt with in this current year, but the actual speculations occurred right from the start when British troops went into occupied countries."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th February, 1947; Vol. 433, cc. 1049, 1064–5.]
I find it impossible, in these circumstances, not to feel that it was reasonable we should have been satisfied—at any rate as far as we could see for the moment—that he had made a disclosure which showed what had happened. It is also fair criticism to say that what he might have said was that there were nearly £40 million more which would have to be spoken about at some time. We could all have taken it perfectly well. It would have been easy to say, "I would like the House to know, in respect of the question asked by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne, that there are very large sums which are on the way."
I do not believe he intended to mislead, but he did not disclose, and by that particular answer which he gave to the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston), it unfortunately did look as though this huge thing was not possible. [An HON. MEMBER: "Read the Supplementary Estimates."] Some hon. Members will remember that on 18th February there was not a soul present who ever dreamt it was conceivably possible that the British taxpayer had been robbed by a section of our own fellow countrymen of a sum of not merely £20 million, but of £60 million. No one knew it except the Secretary of State for War, and, I suppose, his colleague. That being so, if only we could now hear the words "I agree it is unwise." It is a question of losing face. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman will lose face. It is right that where there has been a misconception, not merely in this House but throughout the country, that the right hon. Gentleman and those who stand with him should see to it that in future he does not do things of this kind. The defence put up by the hon. Member for South Cardiff was much too thin. The proper thing is that we should go into the Lobby, unless something happens now, and vote to show that what has happened was wrong.

6.45 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. John Freeman): I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) has apologised for being unable to remain until the end of the Debate. I am disappointed that he has gone, because naturally I had some comments to make on the speech he made. I have little doubt that any comment I can make on his forensic skill will have no effect on him and so I propose to say exactly what I should have said, had he been here. I was glad to see him come down and take part in an Army Debate, which is not a very usual thing for the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Hon. Members opposite and right hon. Members of the Opposition Front Bench who take part in these Army Debates have become rather well known to us. We have quite affectionate relations with them, and we are glad to see them when they do take part.
We should be glad to see the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) with us tonight. I wonder whether the House would like to consider why the noble Lord, who normally leads for the Opposition on these occasions and is a very persuasive speaker on Army affairs, has not thought fit that he should come down and present his case to us. [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite can put forward any explanations they like, but I wish to draw the attention of the House to one thing which occurs to me as a possible explanation. It is a remark the noble Lord made on 13th March, that is to say, after we had had the previous Debate on the subject of these mark losses. At that stage the noble Lord, who has not put his name to this Motion, said of my right hon. Friend:
I think I am speaking for both sides of the House when I say, while one cannot always divorce personal predilections from political differences—and the right hon. Gentleman knows I am not effusive—he is very much the right man in the right place."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 13th March, 1947: Vol. 434. c. 1527.]
That was the view of the noble Lord at a date after the original Debate on these mark losses had taken place. I hear hon. Members saying "Get on." They have introduced this, and I shall debate it as I think fit. We should have been glad


to see the noble Lord here. While we recognise the vast military experience acquired by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Derby in the Judge Advocate-General's Department, we none the less want—

Squadron-Leader Fleming: On a point of Order. What has this to do with the Motion?

Mr. Speaker: An hon. Member must be allowed to develop his case in his own way.

Mr. Freeman: I do not want to press this point unduly. I have a point here of which I should like the House to take notice. I wonder whether, in fact, we have been asked to debate this Motion in these terms, not because hon. Members think it will have the smallest possible effect on either the past or the future, but because they think, by putting up the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Derby, with the blood still dripping from his jowl—

Mr. Henry Strauss: On a point of Order. The Under-Secretary has just referred to the military career of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) as having been spent in the Judge Advocate-General's Department. Surely he is aware that my right hon. and learned Friend fought with the Scots Guards in the first world war and, in those circumstances, is it in accordance with the traditions of the House, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Gentleman should make that sort of remark?

Mr. Speaker: I said that the hon. Member must be allowed to develop his case in his own way. Hon. Members may resent it, but in the end the public read these things, and can form their own opinion.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Further to that point of Order. The hon. Gentleman referred to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) as having blood dripping from his jowl. I hardly want to call your attention to such a childish remark, Sir, but is that the way to refer to a Member or right hon. Member of this House?

Mr. Speaker: I did not actually hear what the Under-Secretary did say.

Mr. Nicholson: He used the words I have just repeated, and I say to you, Sir, that those words are offensive to the House of Commons.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: I think we had better hear whether the Under-Secretary is going to say whether he did utter those words, or wishes to alter them in any way.

Mr. Freeman: If hon. Members will permit me, I was going to say that I did use those words, and that if they are held to be a breach of taste I gladly withdraw them. With regard to the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. H. Strauss), I am glad to hear of the experience of his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) in the Scots Guards. I did not know it, and I do not dispute it. All I said—and it was not an insult at all—was that he had had experience in the Judge Advocate-General's Department during the recent war. Members opposite have made some harsh remarks about my right hon. Friend during this Debate, and they must listen to something I have to say to them now.
The real reason, I suggest to the House, why the right hon. and learned Gentleman was put up to develop this case against the Government is because Members opposite have followed the advice of their leader, who endorsed—on a date which I will not bother to quote to the House—the practice of "hiring a pert lawyer in order to insult your political opponents." I do not blame Members opposite, but that is what we have had to listen to today, and I hope the House will present a rather sterner front to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Derby than the Conservative ladies of Liverpool.

Mr. Nicholson: What does that mean?

Mr. Freeman: This Motion is divided into two parts. First, we are asked to agree with the Public Accounts Committee in their report, and second, we are asked by hon. and right hon. Members opposite to express regret at the course of action which my right hon. Friend took


on the Committee stage of this Supplementary Estimate. We have heard a great deal today about the report of the Public Accounts Committee, but I do not know that it has all been very fruitful because, when all is said and done, there is nothing between the two sides in the acceptance of that Report. No doubt in Debate each side will seek to emphasise slightly different points but, in general terms, both sides accept that report. I deprecate the attempts made by one or two Members to read more into the report than is there. For instance, the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston), at the beginning of the Debate, put a gloss on paragraph 44 which I do not think is there. The hon. Gentleman said—and I do not pretend that he misled the House, as he did not quote the words—that the losses could have been reduced if more energetic and more imaginative measures had been used. The report does not say that. It says:
The losses could have been reduced it earlier measures had been taken.
There is, in this case, a distinction between "earlier" and "more energetic" because the whole deliberations of the Public Accounts Committee had been on this factual issue of the dates on which things happened. It is, therefore, a pity that Members opposite should seek to put a gloss on the report which is not there.
In general terms we accept what the Public Accounts Committee have said about this matter, and I would draw the attention of the House to a fact which my right hon. Friend referred to, that they realised that it is easy to be wise after the event. From what I have heard today I have wondered whether the Public Accounts Committee were not over-optimistic in making even that expression of opinion. But they have gone out of their way to point out that there were great inherent difficulties in the situation, and in recording the degree of blame they have recorded that they none the less accept the fact that it is easy to be wise after the event. There is one point in the report of that Committee which I would ask the House to look at, and, possibly, take with a grain of salt. In paragraph 43 the Committee say:
Your Committee doubt, however, whether the introduction of a scheme with the object of restricting undesirable prac-

tices would, in fact, have created much difficulty.
That is a matter of opinion. My right hon. Friend and his advisers thought that such difficulties would be encountered, and that they would be serious. It is possible that they were mistaken in that view, but the Public Accounts Committee in expressing that view, which they were entitled to do, and in which they may be right, none the less did not interrogate any witnesses other than the Principal Accounting Officer at the War Office. If they were going to pass that stricture it might have been advisable, if they had thought fit, to send for a senior officer from Germany, and hear his views as to what the morale of the situation might have been. I have no quarrel with the report, which is an eminently balanced one, but I put that point forward for the consideration of the House.
On the issue of the Public Accounts Committee Report, the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) referred to unrecorded losses. I am sure that he was not guilty of any desire to mislead the House, but I suggest to him that it is conceivable that even he perhaps did not quite understand what was the nature of these unrecorded losses. If he did not understand before he should have understood when he heard my hon. Friend the Member for South Cardiff (Mr. Callaghan), because I think he made the point plain. It is true, as the Public Accounts Committee have said, that there were hidden and unrecorded losses which we can never know and which cannot he defined. But to say, as the hon. Member for Devizes said, that extra losses were incurred, and were not brought out, and which, to use his own words, we did not bother to add up, or could not add up, is such a distortion of the fact that I hope he will agree that he slightly misapprehended the position.

Mr. Hollis: I married the two—paragraphs 15 and 45. Paragraph 15, said that there were unrecorded losses in the past owing to the exchange of goods against goods, and paragraph 45 said that was still going on.

Mr. Freeman: The hon. Member is perfectly entitled to do that, but he is not entitled to suggest, as I think he did—the House can judge for themselves—that there is any concealment here which could possibly have been made public or


indeed, that it would be possible to assess these further losses by anything other than pure guess work. The hon. Member added, on that particular point, that these unrecorded losses had also taken place in Italy. Of course, they had. I am making no party point. It remains a fact that these unrecorded losses had taken place in Italy throughout the whole period during which our troops were in Italy. The only reason that we did not have an accumulated surplus balance of lira in Italy was that we had in Italy a method of injecting into the Italian economy the lira we collected; and that is the reason why it is quite unreasonable for hon Members opposite to say, "Why did not you learn from previous experience?" We have heard that about lira and about guilders. The answer is that, while previous experience would have had some relevance to this problem if we had been as wise after the event as before, the situation in Germany was unparalleled and the application of previous experience would not have led us to the right conclusion.
The right hon. and learned Member for West Derby went on at a later stage in his speech to point out that the shortages of goods and dollars in this country at the present moment makes the matter more serious. I hope that the House will look at this and see what is the truth or otherwise of that statement. Of course, it is undesirable that any goods for which we are paying dollars should pass into the hands of German black marketeers. But it is not open to him to suggest that our particular shortages of the moment have been worsened by what happened unless he can also show that the supply of goods to canteens during the relevant period was at an unreasonable and inflated level. That cannot be shown, and in fact it is not true. While I do not seek to defend in any way the course of action taken over these goods, it is a fact that once a soldier bought these goods and had them in his own hands, the shortage of goods and dollars from which we are suffering in this country temporarily at this moment, has not thereby increased.
I want to address myself to paragraph 45 of the report of the Committee of Public Accounts to which the hon. Member for Devizes referred. I think that the hon. Member for Westbury did so as well,

and certainly the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby did. The Public Accounts Committee in paragraph 45 note that this barter is still going on, and they trust that we shall take all possible steps to put it right. There is really nothing on this point which I can add to what the hon. Member for South Cardiff (Air. Callaghan) has said about it. There is the problem. It is perfectly true that any commodity which is passed to a German in return for services rendered, represents an infinitisimally small loss to the British Exchequer. If any hon. Member of this House who was previously in Germany played a round of golf and gave five cigarettes to his caddy at the end of it, he was responsible for a very small loss to the Exchequer. The Public Accounts Committee say rather unctuously, as my right hon. Friend said, that we must take all possible steps to stop that. I ask the House in all human reasonableness what can we do to stop it? We will certainly do everything that we can to bring to book people who are found guilty of disregarding the regulations which we published on the subject. That is the same method which the Treasury are using in regard to currency black marketing on the Riviera.
We have referred to the authorities in Germany the recommendation of the Public Accounts Committee on this point, in order that they may give us their formal assurance on a situation of which we are already well aware, that they have published all the necessary regulations to make this practice illegal. They have done all that, and it is out of all human reason for hon. Members to suggest that it is open to my right hon. Friend, in any way, to take any action which will conclusively prevent barter in Germany at the present moment. Therefore, while one accepts with the Public Accounts Committee the desirability of limiting this barter as much as possible, it is quite impossible to give any effective guarantee that it can be brought to a stop. With regard to the currency leakages, I think that it is possible to guarantee that, except for the danger residing in the possibility of forgery, currency losses have been stopped, and if forgery should arise, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, we have plans laid to meet it.
I want to turn to the second part of the Motion on the Order Paper and to the


Amendment which I shall formally move before I sit down. It is suggested that my right hon. Friend failed to give the Committee the information which in fact he should have given. Really the case which has been made against my right hon. Friend of misleading the Committee is so utterly flimsy that I feel quite certain that not only is it received with contempt on this side of the House, but it is really not believed by the majority of hon Members opposite. When I first saw the Motion on the Order Paper, I went through the proceedings of the Committee in the light of the subsequent Report of the Public Accounts Committee to find out whether any misleading could have taken place. While it is perfectly true, as hon. Members opposite have pointed out, that there were two ill-considered answers to interruptions in the middle of a speech, which could be interpretated to be slightly misleading, when they are looked at against the Supplementary Estimate itself with the Memorandum attached to it, which was in the hands of the House and which hon. Members opposite ought to have read, and looked at also in the light of the Vote on the Army Appropriation Account for the year in question which was just about to come before the House—

Mr. Peake: indicated dissent.

Mr. Freeman: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. It was to come up six weeks later. The point is as hon. Members have not been slow to point out that, prior to the date of this Debate, the accounting officer of the War Office, with the knowledge of my right hon. Friend, had actually signed that account. That argument cuts both ways. It is used by hon. Members opposite to suggest that my right hon. Friend was seeking to conceal. Is it conceivable when that step had been taken and we at the War Office knew that account was being passed and we were shortly going to publish the accounts—is it conceivably possible that it was intended to deceive the House? In fact I do not believe that he did really deceive the House. We have had a great deal of play made over this interruption of the hon. Member for Westbury. Again and again reference has been made to an answer given by my right hon. Friend to a question by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Westbury and one of the

counsel for the prosecution read it out last. My right hon. Friend's answer was: "Yes, Sir." in regard to the question of whether the loss came into this year. He said on that occasion,
The loss came into this year because the marks which have accumulated have to be dealt with in the current year…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th February, 1947: Vol. 433, c. 1061.]
I would ask the House to note that the reference is to marks "which have accumulated" not marks which had previously in the past accumulated and already had been written off in a previous account. It seems to me to be perfectly reasonable to say in answer to that, that this was in relation to the matter which we were considering, this particular £20 million. I would ask the House to look at it against the background that it was printed in the Supplementary Estimate the House was asked to consider, that there were previous losses in other years; and therefore, the suggestion against my right hon. Friend is too absurd for serious consideration.
I want to refer to the serious suggestion which was made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Derby in relation to a point of Order in connection with which I and the noble Lord the Member for Horsham intervened, and finally you, Mr. Speaker, gave a Ruling. This was due, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out, to the fact that my right hon. Friend had by a slip of the tongue referred to the passing of the Army Estimates instead of the Army Accounts. I do not think the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggests that it was ever more than a slip of the tongue, and indeed, I think he told the House so. The point of Order that was raised with you, Mr. Speaker, was whether it would be in Order to debate on a Supplementary Estimate what had, in fact, occurred previously and had already been written off in a previous Army Account. You gave your Ruling to the effect that a Debate on such a matter would not be out of Order and you said at that time:
I understand that the £38 million was passed in the last Estimates; the House has had an opportunity of debating the £38 million and the matter, is, therefore, finished. I understand that is what the Secretary of State has now said. It is not now in Order to debate that matter."—


[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February, 1947; Vol. 433, col. 2222.]
It might be that the Secretary of State, by a slip of the tongue, if I may use the phrase, put those words almost into your mouth. I suggest to you with the greatest possible respect that, in fact, you had no possible option but to rule any discussion on that account out of Order, because whatever else was true of it, it certainly did not arise out of the Supplementary Estimate we were considering. If am right in that submission to you—and I feel confident that I am—then what we are being asked to do in this Motion is not to pass judgment one way or the other as to whether or not my right hon. Friend may or may not have misled the House—that is the point which was brought in this afternoon—but what we are being asked to do is to say, as set out on the Order Paper:
That this House … expresses its regret that the Secretary of State for War did not disclose in Committee of Supply on 18th February the full extent of the losses incurred by the Exchequer.
In other words, we are being asked to express regret because on 18th February the Secretary of State did not do what quite clearly it was not in Order to do and what he could not have done in any case without being ruled out of Order.

Mr. Pickthorn: Since so much weight is put on this argument, may I now put it to you, Sir, as a point of Order? Would it be in Order on a Supplementary Estimate of that sort, for the Minister to refer to the fact that there was an earlier similar figure which had not before appeared in the Estimate, because at that period the Estimate system was in abeyance? Would such a reference have been in Order or would it not?

Mr. Freeman: Further to that point of Order. I submit before you reply to that Mr. Speaker, you should bear in mind that that statement was already printed in the memorandum to the Estimate.

Mr. Speaker: What statement?

Mr. Freeman: The statement that the £20 million which we were at that time considering was only that part of the loss which fell within that current year.

Mr. Speaker: I think my Ruling was the correct one in the first instance. After all, what was in a former Estimate could not be discussed in the present year but

whether it should have been mentioned or not is rather a matter of opinion.

Mr. Freeman: We will ponder that Ruling and each of us will derive what comfort he can from it. I must draw your attention to the fact that if this is to be an authoritative Ruling, with great respect, the money in question had not been passed in the previous Estimate because of our previous accountancy system. The point of substance was that this was not relevant to the Supplementary Estimate we were considering, and, therefore, surely it was out of Order to discuss it.

Mr. Speaker: That surely was my Ruling, that as this came under a previous Estimate, it, therefore, was finished and done with. The other point was whether or not it should have been mentioned. Had it been mentioned, I could not have stopped that, but it could not have been discussed anyhow.

Mr. Callaghan: Further to that point of Order. May I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that on that day I counted 59 Rulings given from the Chair as to what was in Order and what was not in Order. The discussion was clearly extremely limited and everyone who spoke did so with caution.

Mr. Speaker: If on one particular day I gave 59 Rulings, I was exceeding my average.

Mr. Freeman: There is no doubt that in full consciousness of that my right hon. Friend exercised extreme caution on that occasion.
I beg to move in line 2, to leave out from "Committee," to the end of the Question.
There is little more I want to say except that I would ask the House to accept the Report of the Public Accounts Committee, bearing in mind the arguments which have been adduced by both sides this afternoon. I should like to say and no doubt the hon. Member for Westbury and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Derby will agree with me that this document is complicated and it really does not lie in the mouths of hon. Gentlemen opposite who have not taken the trouble to read it, to pass stringent criticism on my right hon. Friend who has.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Smiles: rose

Mr. Freeman: I will not give way, for am winding up. In regard to the latter part of the Motion, in respect of which I have moved the Amendment, I would ask the House to have no hesitation in deleting it. I expect that not only will there be a great majority for our Amendment, but I would not be altogether surprised if perhaps one or two hon. Members opposite were prepared, if not to vote against the Motion, at any rate to abstain from voting, because I do not believe for one moment that a number of hon. and gallant Members opposite who are interested in the well-being of the Army and who have assisted us in this Parliament to the greatest possible extent to run the Army, approve of what has been done this afternoon. This is a matter which twice before we have debated, and the Public Accounts Committee have now issued a full Report. It is perfectly within the

rights of hon. Members opposite to rake it up again but they must forgive us if when they do so we come to the conclusion that it is done to get cheap political publicity in their own Press tomorrow morning rather than to help or further the well being of the Army.

Captain Crookshank: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down may I ask him if he intends to explain how it is that this Amendment appears in the name of the Secretary of State for War and himself, and not in the name of the Prime Minister or one of the more senior Members of the Government as is usual when the conduct of a Minister is being criticised? Is the explanation that no one is prepared to whitewash them, so that they have to whitewash themselves?

Question put, "That the words pro posed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 114; Noes, 239.

Division No. 317.
AYES
[7.21 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr P. G.
Hollis, M. C.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Amory, D. Heathcoal
Hope, Lord J.
Prescott, Stanley


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R
Hurd, A.
Prior-Palmer, Brig, O


Baldwin, A. E.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Birch, Nigel
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Boles, Lt.-Col O. C. (Wells)
Keeling, E. H.
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Bossom, A. C.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Bowen, R
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Bower, N.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Ropner, Col. L.


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Lipson, D. L
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col W
Low, Brig A R. W
Sanderson, Sir F.


Buchan-Hepburn, P G T
Lucas, Major Sir J
Savory, Prof. D. L.


Butcher, H. W
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H
Shephard, S (Newark)


Byers, Frank
Maodonald, Sir P. (I of Wight)
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Challen, C.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W


Clarke, Col R. S.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Snadden, W. M.


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Spearman, A. C. M


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Manningham-Butler, R. E.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)
Marples, A. E.
Strauss, H. G (English Universities)


Elliot Rt. Hon Waller
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Sutcliffe, H


Erroll, F. J.
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E L
Maude, J. C
Teeling, William


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Mellor, Sir J.
Thomas, J. P. L (Hereford)


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Molson, A. H. E.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Gage, C.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Thorp, Lt.-Col R. A. F


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencesier)
Touche, G. C.


Gammans, L. D
Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.
Wadsworth, G.


Gridley, Sir A.
Neven-Spence, Sir B
Wakefield, Sir W. W


Grimston, R. V
Nicholson, G
Walker-Smith, D.


Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Nutting, Anthony
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Hare, Hon J. H. (Woodbridge)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Head, Brig. A, H
Peto, Brig. C. H. M



Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Pickthorn, K.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hogg, Hon. Q
Pitman, I J
Mr. Studholme and




Major Conant.




NOES


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Alpass, J. H.
Austin, H. Lewis


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Awbery, S. S.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Attewell, H C
Ayles, W. H.




Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B
Hamilton, Lieut. -Col. R
Porter E. (Warrington)


Balfour A
Harrison, J
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Barnes, Rt. Hon A J
Hastings, Dr Somerville
Proctor, W. T.


Barstow, P G
Henderson, A (Kingswinford)
Randall, H. E


Battley, J. R.
Herbison, Miss M.
Ranger, J


Bechervaise, A. E.
Hewitson, Capt. M
Rees-Williams, D R


Belcher, J W.
Hobson, C. R.
Reeves, J.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon F. [...]
Holman, P.
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Benson, G.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M


Beswick, F.
House, G.
Robens, A.


Bevan, Rt Hon A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Rogers, G. H. R.


Bing, G. H C
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Binns, J.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Royle, C.


Blackburn, A. R
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Sargood, R.


Blenkinsop, A.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G A
Scollan, T.


Blyton, W. R.
Janner, B
Scott-Elliot, W


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Jay, D. P. T
Segal, Dr. S.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Shackleton, E. A. A


Bramall, E. A.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Sharp, Granville


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Shawcross, C. N (Widnes)


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Keenan, W.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E


Brown, George (Belper)
King, E. M
Shurmer, P.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Kinley, J.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Kirby, B. V
Simmons, C. J.


Burden, T. W.
Lavers, S.
Skeffington, A. M


Callaghan, James
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Skinnard, F. W.


Carmichael, James
Leonard, W.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Leslie, J. R.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)


Chamberlain, R. A
Levy, B. W.
Snow, Capt. J. W.


Champion, A. J
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Sorensen, R. W


Chater, D.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M
Soskice, Maj Sir [...]


Chetwynd, G. R
Longden, F.
Sparks, J. A


Cluse, W. S
Lyne, A. W
Stamford, W


Cobb, F. A.
McAdam, W
Steele, T.


Cocks, F S.
McEntee, V. La T
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Coldrick, W.
McGhee, H. G.
Stubbs, A. E


Collins, V. J.
Mack, J. D
Symonds, A. L.


Comyns, Dr. L.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Corvedale, Viscount
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Cove, W. G.
McLeavy, F.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Crossman, R. H S
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Daggar, G.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Daines, P.
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Thurtle, Ernest


Deer, G.
Marshall, F. (Brightside)
Titterington, M. F.


Diamond, J
Mathers, G.
Tolley, L.


Dobbie, W
Mayhew, C P
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G


Dodds, N N
Medland, H M
Turner-Samuels, M.


Donovan, T.
Mellish, R. J.
Ungoed-Thomas, L


Driberg, T E. N.
Messer, F.
Usborne, Henry


Dugdale, J (W. Bromwich)
Middleton, Mrs. L
Vernon, Maj W F


Dumpleton, C. W.
Mikardo, Ian
Viant, S P


Durbin, E F. M.
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R
Walkden, E.


Dye, S.
Mitchison, G. R
Walker, G. H.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Monslow, W.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Moody, A. S.
Wallace, H. W (Walthamstow, E.)


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Morgan, Dr. H. B
Weitzman, D


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Morley, R.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Moyle, A.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Fletcher, E. G M. (Islington, E.)
Naylor, T. E.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W


Follick, M.
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Wigg, Col G. E


Foot, M. M
Nichol, Mrs M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Wilkins, W. A


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Noel-Baker, Capt. F E (Brentford)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)
Noel-Buxton, Lady
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Ganley, Mrs C S
O'Brien, T.
Williams, W R. (Heston)


Gilz[...], A
Oliver, G. H
Willis, E.


Glanv[...]te, J. E. (Consett)
Orbach, M.
Wills, Mrs. E A


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Paget, R. T.
Woodburn, A.


Greenwood, A W J. (Heywood)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Woods, G. S


Grey, C. F.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Wyatt, W.


Grietson, E
P[...]rker, J.
Yates, V F.


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon J (Llanelly)
Pearson, A.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


G[...]ter, R. J
Peart, T. F



G[...] W. H.
Platte-Mills, J. F. F.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hale, Leslie
Poole, Major Cecil (Lichfield)
Mr. Joseph Henderson and


Hall, W. G
Popplewell, E
Mr. Hannan.


Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:

"That this House doth agree with the Second Report of the Committee of Public Accounts."

SUPPLY

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

ARMY ESTIMATE, 1947–48

WAR OFFICE

Motion made, and Question proposed:
That a sum, not exceeding £2,856,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the expenses of the War Office, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1948."—[Mr. Bellenger.]

TERRITORIAL ARMY

7.32 p.m.

Brigadier Head: Hon. Members on this side of the Committee have been aware that our time for this discussion is limited. For that reason, we thought it right to restrict the discussion to one aspect of the Army. We felt that, should we range over the very wide area of the Army as a whole, the discussion, in the short time likely to be available to us, would be worth very little. Therefore, we have suggested that this discussion should not only restrict itself to the Territorial Army, but, further than that, to those steps which can now be taken so as to improve the preliminary steps taken by the Territorial Army to ensure that the National Service Act should be made a success and that those called up under it, should be given the best possible training.
Before this discussion, we have had a very much more spectacular Debate. It seems very easy, especially so soon after a war, to disregard the importance of the subject which we are now to discuss. Indeed, there is every sign that this Committee, the public and the Press are likely to disregard the importance of the Territorial Army at a time when its claim to importance is difficult to exaggerate. The British public has a chronic indifference towards the Army. It seems to me, after a fairly long period in it, that the enthusiasm of the public and of the Press is excited only when the British Army is carrying out a major withdrawal or perhaps taking part in a victory parade.
There are many people absent tonight who will show quite exemplary interest in the Army should the foreign situation deteriorate in a marked degree. I, therefore, commend to hon. Members, to members of the Press and to the public

that this subject has an importance which is not only exceptional at the moment, but far transcends any degree of importance that it had in the past. We should remember that the Territorial Army is going to have passing through it the majority of the youth of this country, and that it has in effect become a kind of university for the youth of England For that reason, should its reception ot, and its ability to look after and train, these young men be bad, then the legacy which the Territorial Army will give to the country as a whole will be not only bad soldiers, but bad citizens as well.
Lastly, I would stress, for those who are not impressed by that argument, that if and when the foreign situation deteriorates, the first sign will be that everyone will show a very strong interest in our air defence. I would remind the public and this Committee that our air defence rests entirely on the Royal Air Force and the Territorial Army. Seldom, if ever, has a small amateur body been faced with such a very big responsibility. I would like to devote my remarks to the difficulties and troubles which are likely to be encountered in preparations for the training of the Territorial Army during the next few years. It is somewhat paradoxical that, in discussing the Territorial Army, one should state that it does not exist today; but that is, nevertheless, a fact.
If hon. Members will forgive me, I would like briefly to state the background against which my remarks are made. The young men who will be called up for the Territorial Army will not be drawn on, so to speak, until 1949. It is only then that the tap will be turned on. When it is turned on the reservoir of that manpower will flow for one year along a pipeline which consists of the Regular Army. During that year they will be under the training and care of the Regular Army. Finally, in 1950, they will reach the next reservoir, the Territorial Army. It will not be until 1955 that the Territorial Army will be filled. For that reason, it seems to me that our discussion tonight may best be turned towards the preparation for the passage of the young men of this country through the Regular Army for one year and then towards their reception within the Territorial Army—for which purpose voluntary recruiting is now taking place—partly by voluntary Territorials and partly


by the assistance of a small cadre of the Regular Army.
Let us consider the period when the National Service man, having been called up, undergoes his one year's service with the Regular Army. I hope you will allow me, Major Milner, to mention the Regular Army inasmuch as its effect upon this period of national service is indivisible from the future of the Territorial Army. One of two things may happen during the period when the National Service man is called up. He may be impressed by his instruction and by the discipline through which he passes, and by the efficiency of the Army as a whole. In that case it will be not only a good introduction to the Army and to his future as a Territorial, but it will also be a good introduction to citizenship in this country. If the task is carried out otherwise and the Regular Army proves that it is not running an efficient show, all that will happen will be that the National Service man will feel that his time has been wasted and that the Army as a whole is making a bad job of it. Not only will he feel that he is wasting his time, but he will get into bad habits and it is certain that he will work up a feeling of antagonism towards the Army as a whole.
I doubt whether any body of men has ever had a more responsible position than the Regular Army has in making the National Service Act work. I will say very sincerely to the Secretary of State that any economy, any stinting towards the Regular Army and their ability to carry out this task, will not only be ruining the chances of forming an efficient Territorial Army, but will also mean that he will be giving to a lot of impressionable young men the worst possible introduction to civil life.
What is the state of the Regular Army today? Recruiting is low. It is very stretched with its commitments for Imperial policing and for providing cadres for new training purposes. It will be even more stretched in a year's time when this task falls upon it. Furthermore, I would invite hon. Members to recall that no Regular officer is at the present time allowed to leave the Army except under very special circumstances. Cannot something be done to ensure that the type of man who is wanted for the Regular Army will be recruited?
There is one strong and lasting grievance in the Army at the moment. Were I the Secretary of State, I would not be happy until that had been put right. It is this. Some time ago the Adjutant-General informed all Regular officers and N.C.Os. that under the new allowances code they would be better off than they had been before. He did that in good faith and was assuming that Income Tax would become lower. In effect, these officers and N.C.Os. on whom the main burden of providing the training cadre for all the youth of this country will fall are far worse off than they were before the war. That is a tragic state of affairs. If the Secretary of State hopes to recruit the kind of officers and N.C.Os. he requires to deal with this very big commitment, I beg and implore him to consider that very seriously, and to put right the anomaly whereby a lieutenant-colonel with two children is £150 a year worse off than before and a staff sergeant with no children is £40 worse off. These are circumstances which should never occur when the cost of living has gone up and throughout the country wages have also gone up.
I would like to ask the Secretary of State one more question on this aspect. How long is the National Service man going to spend in this country during his training, and how long is he going to spend abroad? When the period of National Service was 18 months, then after a year's training he would have his last six months abroad. Now that the service has been cut to only one year, it seems to me, on the very restricted figures available to me, that a large proportion of his time will of necessity be spent abroad bolstering up the very thin numbers which are available to the Regular Army for policing. I feel that to send a large number of semi-trained youths out to occupied countries will be not only a very demoralising experience but, unless they are fully trained and disciplined, a disastrous experience for those young men. I most sincerely hope that the Secretary of State will tell us what his plans are about these young men during the period of their call-up.
The last point with regard to the period which they have with the Regular Army concerns their training. Before what I might call this "panic decision" was made that the period of service should be altered from 18 months to one year, there


was some kind of feeling that the Territorial Army would be capable of producing some of the specialist units it was booked to produce; but now only a year is available. Does the Secretary of State really consider that such units as an armoured division, an airborne division and other specialist units can really be produced when there is only a year in which to train a man to be a soldier and to give him his specialist training? Can they really be brought to the required state of efficiency? If this is just a hangover from the old plan based on an 18 months' period of call-up, for goodness' sake let us scrap it and produce a realistic plan which represents what really can be done within the time available.
I now turn to the other phase of the training of the Territorial Army, namely, that period for which that cadre of Territorial volunteers is now preparing. At the outset I would like to express the admiration which most of us on this side of the Committee feel for those who have saddled themselves with the task of recruiting, organising and working this body of volunteers to do a job which every other conscription country in the world has done with professionals. We are, perhaps, the only country which has been able to do that, and I feel that this spirit should at all costs be fostered, and if the right hon. Gentleman lets them down, he deserves the very worst that will come to him.
I would like to discuss a few matters concerning present recruiting. On this side of the Committee, we do not know what the recruiting situation is, and I hope very much that the right hon. Gentleman will tell us what is the target, and also how it is being realised. Information available to us, which is scanty and somewhat limited, suggests that it is far from satisfactory. I would like to direct a few remarks towards the reasons recruiting is unsatisfactory and what can be done by the right hon. Gentleman to remedy it. First, there is undoubtedly uncertainty within the Territorial Army regarding recruiting policy. On the one hand, there are units which, acting on the instructions of the War Office, are recruiting cadres of officers, N.C.O.s and a few—if I may use the term—"old sweats" as storemen, which will be ready, as cadres, to receive the National Service man when he is called up. On the other hand, there are units going

ahead with voluntary recruiting in an attempt to recruit an entire unit of volunteers so that it shall be entirely clear of the National Service men. There is uncertainty in the Territorial Army as to what the War Office requirements are in this respect. I hope very much that the right hon. Gentleman will clear up this point.
Secondly, there is also definite certainty among those who are attempting to recruit that many men are hanging back owing to their uncertainty concerning the annual camp. The Secretary of State may recall that before the war, men had their holiday with pay and their civilian firms also granted them leave for their camp. At the present moment there are many men who might join the Territorial Army, but they do not know the policy about the camp. Their civilian firm says, "We cannot tell you what we are going to do because we are waiting a lead from the Government." If this matter is left in suspense, these men will not volunteer. The right hon. Gentleman will be forced into a decision in this respect by 1950, because when the National Service man comes up, it must be decided. I entreat and implore the right hon. Gentleman to do a thing which is much against War Office policy—take time by the forelock and make his decision now. By doing so he will ensure that those men who are uncertain will know one way or another, and will know whether or not to join, but if he stalls and waits until 1950, he will lose a great many useful recruits for this very important cadre, the volunteer Territorial Army. I very much hope the right hon. Gentleman will take that view.
Every hon. Member on this side of the Committee is convinced that whether or not the Territorial Army really works in the future will, to a large extent, depend an its relationship with industry as a whole. I believe that one of the biggest factors in ensuring that its relationships with industry are good or bad will be through the representation of the trades unions on the Territorial Associations. They can do an immense job, or if things go wrong, in this respect, they can be an immense spoke in the wheel. I do not know what the trades unions think about the Army, but I hope and believe that they will learn to sympathise with its difficulties and get on well with the Army. All I know is that on the only occasion on which I have met an officer who has had


contact with the trade union representatives, he described them in terms which I would like to repeat to the Committee, but owing to the somewhat eccentric habit in the Army of couching its endearments in rather obscene terms, I am afraid I would be out of Order. However, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that they were most complimentary, and I hope very much that there will be the closest liaison and goodwill between those trade union representatives and the Territorial Associations because, without them, I do not believe that in the difficult situation through which we shall pass, the Territorial Army can work at all.
I have heard publicity criticised very much by people concerned with the Territorial Army and the volunteer recruiting. It is always easy to criticise, but there are certain aspects of the recruiting drive within the Army which have not been inspired, to put it mildly. First, the date selected for the start of recruiting was 1st April. Quite apart from the fact that that is not an inspired date, it seems to me that perhaps the end of the summer holidays is a better time than when the first green of spring is coming. However, I understand that afterwards it was postponed. Secondly, I have myself seen posters which I cannot believe are in the best interests of recruiting. One of them said—I hope the right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong—
Join the Army and prepare yourself for a better life in the future.
I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that it would have been equivalent for him to have said at the last General Election but one, "Vote Labour and prepare yourselves for a Conservative Government in the future." I cannot believe that, psychologically or from the propaganda angle, that is a very wise poster. This is an important aspect of the volunteer recruiting. A noble Lord in another place said that publicity has been delegated to the Territorial Associations, but what reason have we to believe that there are people within the Territorial Associations who know about this very specialised subject? I have criticised the right hon. Gentleman perhaps rather harshly, and he may rightly say to me, "Well, what would you do in my place?" I would offer him one perhaps good, perhaps bad, solution; I would suggest that he should tip-toe down Whitehall, look in at the Air

Ministry and pinch one of their head publicity men. They have a lot to teach him.
Passing rapidly on to another subject, supposing recruiting goes fairly well, then there will be a period, when those recruited have to wait nearly two years before the National Service man arrives. That is what worries me very much on this aspect of the problem. I entreat the right hon. Gentleman during those two years to consider these volunteers as somewhat delicate plants, to water them frequently with the things which make organisations like that go, namely, material, money, and so forth. It is my experience of the War Office that their habit, when they have got something going a little bit, is to leave it without any water for about two years and then suddenly to upset the entire watercan over it. I beg the right hon. Gentleman not to starve this small cadre, this volunteer cadre who will train the Territorial Army, until the last moment and then give them everything. Let them have a little now, rather than a great deal in two years' time, because that is what matters.
May I now mention briefly the things which I suggest he should give them? The first—and it is well known to the right hon. Gentleman—is drill halls. It is easy to stand here and say, "Give them drill halls," and I know they are practically unobtainable, and that there is an appalling housing shortage in the country. However, there are many bright improvisators within the Army and there is much surplus stores. This is probably a futile suggestion, but could he not get hold of the odd bits of Bailey bridges, some asbestos sheeting and corrugated iron bits and rig up something? Do not let us be hidebound by the specification which I have no doubt is within the files of the War Office: "Hall, drill, 1, 27 feet by 87 feet" or some such figure. Could it not be approached in an entirely unconventional way, somewhat after the method by which such problems were approached during the war because—I put it to the right hon. Gentleman, and perhaps he will sympathise with me over this—a Territorial recruit without a drill hall is like a politician without a platform—he will suffer both from depression and repression. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will do his best.
My next point concerns equipment. Anyone who was a soldier in 1935 will


be solidly behind me on the effect of the lack of equipment with which to train. In a long military career, my only military success was enjoyed at such a period. I was put in command of a squadron of armoured cars, represented by flags carried in Austin Sevens and on motor bicycles. By the rather artful procedure of drawing from the quartermaster three times my true allotment of flags, and by using motor bicycles and despatch drivers of friends, I achieved a mobility and ubiquity which was the admiration of every umpire and general near the place. That is not soldiering but practical joking. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be lavish in his equipment of the Territorial Army, not forgetting that it has to be cared for. My last point regarding material concerns accommodation. Everybody in this Committee realises the difficulties we have in this respect, but there is one foundation to even unit which is trying to train men and that is what is called the P.S.I., the permanent staff instructor, the staff sergeant-major, Sergeant-majors are traditionally frightened of their wives. If you do not house them, not only will you not have them contented, but I am quite certain that hell will know no fury like a homeless, henpecked sergeant-major.
My last point in a rather long string of points which I have raised concerns money. In the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—and I am not surprised that he is not here—I have to thank him for one small relief, but I will suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that there are others. I know that he is facing a formidable foe in "having a go" at the Chancellor, but I can assure him that a large number of hon. Gentlemen on this side of the Committee will be on his side and, if he will try one in three falls, they will stick out a foot on his behalf. I do not know what support he will get from the Minister of Defence who, I am sorry to see, is not sufficiently interested in one of the biggest experiments this country has made to be here tonight. Nevertheless, I would say that there are many officers of the Regular Army who never hated Germans in war half as much as they hate the Treasury in peace. I am not saying that is entirely the Treasury's fault, and I appreciate the fact of how short of money we are, and how necessary economy is in this country; but there are a few small things which could

be given to this gallant volunteer force which would make all the difference. I will state them briefly as a list, and I hope that perhaps the right hon. Gentleman tomorrow will look up what I have said and give genuine consideration to meeting them, because the amount of money concerned is small.
First, there should be a little financial discretion to a commanding officer in spending say £20—at the moment he has to get Treasury sanction to drive a nail into the wall. The London allowance for these volunteers and Regulars serving in the Territorial Army is utterly inadequate, and should be made adequate. It is unfair that the subaltern serving in London should be out of pocket. The allowance for messing is utterly inadequate. Lastly, commanding officers and their messes are a kind of centre within their area at which people come to call to offer services—perhaps the mayor or the T.U.C. representative—and they have common or garden beer or pink gin. At the moment that expense comes out of the pocket of the commanding officer, and it is probably the most powerful way in which he can get things done. I entreat the Secretary of State to give a small entertaining allowance to these commanding officers to help them in this matter.
Few people have a greater responsibility, not only from the point of view of the Army but of the country as a whole, than the Secretary of State. When the National Service Bill was introduced, I wondered very much whether it was fully realised by the right hon. Gentleman and the Front Bench as a whole what an immense responsibility that involved. I was put in mind of a brother officer of mine many years ago who got engaged to be married. As custom was at the time, he went to the commanding officer and asked permission, and the commanding officer, much revered but somewhat pontifical, said to him, "I assume you have considered the immense responsibilities and implications of taking this young woman into your somewhat ill-nurtured and unprepared bosom?" That was a surprising remark to the officer, but I think it applies very much to the right hon. Gentleman. Has he considered the responsibilities and implications of taking the majority of the youth of this country into the Army?


It is indeed a very big responsibility, and it is within the next two years that he can prepare for them. If he lets this opportunity go, and waits until the last moment, it will be disastrous. But if he does all he can to prepare for them, he will be performing his task and, "A stitch in time saves nine." Not only that, but always there is the sombre possibility that it will be not just "A stitch in time saves nine," but "A stitch in time saves lives."

8.4 p.m.

Mr. Rees-Williams: The hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head) has made an interesting speech and one from which we can learn. He made a number of good points, but he spoke on this matter as a Regular. It seems to me, as a Territorial, that he was regarding the whole matter from the Regular standpoint, and not from the Territorial standpoint at all. It so happens that the Regular Army, except in the rare instances where they have served in the Territorial Army, have never understood it. It goes without saying that the War Office have never understood it. In my experience the Regulars were always derogatory in their attitude towards it until they served with it. They regarded the Territorial Army as a lot of Saturday afternoon soldiers, which they were not, as we found in two wars.
One of the differences between the two Forces can be summed up in a parallel which a permanent staff instructor told me some years ago when I was a company commander. We were looking at an order which it was almost impossible to carry out, and he said, "The difference between the Territorial Army and the Regular Army is this. In the Regular Army if the colonel decides to have a parade on Thursday morning at 9 o'clock, he tells the adjutant who puts it in orders. Battalion orders are issued to companies and the whole thing works like a machine. At five minutes to nine the battalion commander mounts his horse and when he arrives on the parade ground all the men are lined up. But in the Territorial Army he cannot order anyone to be on parade; there we have to go and collect 350 bodies and persuade them to turn up, see to their feeding and clothing and issue them with boots, and if the parade is there at nine o'clock on Thursday morning, it is not

routine, it is a miracle." The Territorial Army before the war had a spirit of its own. It was not a cadre and if the hon. and gallant Gentleman expects—I do not think he does—it to consist of a lot of cadres we had better call it something else, because it will never be the Territorial Army. The Territorial Army is a mixture between a good Regular unit and a club. The good unit commander has to think just as much about the social side of the unit as of the military side. Those unit commanders who were most effective before the war and wee most successful were those who were good at both, as one very often found to one's cost.
Big displays do not count in recruiting. The hon. and gallant Member referred my right hon. Friend to the question of recruiting displays. I do not think they are worth twopence. I remember before the war in a certain city, whose name I will not mention because it may not like it, there was a very big recruiting drive. We had no less than the then Secretary of State for War down, together with three bands and a thousand men on parade from all over the county and spent the whole of Sunday tramping round the streets. At the end of that tremendous organisation we had one recruit and he was turned down as medically unfit. There is only one way to get recruits to the Territorial Army and that is by the unit commander getting them himself through his officers and N.C.O.'s.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: indicated assent.

Mr. Rees-Williams: I see that the right hon. Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley), who was also a Territorial, agrees with that. I think the only way is to get to the street corners, if necessary. In the old days we went into the public houses. We should remember that this country fought its wars with men who liked a glass of beer, and some of the finest soldiers have been recruited from public houses. I would not encourage the "pansy" method that we must not go round the public houses, but only have the white-collar soldier. The white-collar soldier never fought in Wellington's time, and the old foot-slogging infantry with which I had anything to do had nothing to do with white collars.

Brigadier Head: I did not in fact advocate big recruiting parades.

Mr. Rees-Williams: I was not suggesting that the hon. and gallant Gentleman did advocate them, but the suggestion has been put up, and I am advising my right hon. Friend that these recruiting parades are useless for getting a lot of recruits. From the point of view of generally advertising the Territorial Army they may or may not be good, depending upon what the turn-out is like.
The hon. and gallant Gentleman has made some excellent suggestions on how to get recruits for the Territorial Army. In addition to those he has made, with which I agree, one suggestion I would make concerns food. We know it is difficult today, and I am making no claim that the Territorial soldier should be better fed than anyone else, but the food shortage is temporary; it will disappear long before the Territorial Army does. On a long-term basis, it is important to see that men in the Territorial Army who go to camp get the kind of food they like. I am sorry to introduce a personal element, but I have had some experience on the ground. I found that when I introduced what the Army calls "pansy" dishes, it was a complete waste of time. My men were steel workers and miners, and the type of food they liked was the type to which they were accustomed, the heavy type which hard manual workers get. What seemed to me in my ignorance to be good adjuncts—asparagus, etc.—were dumped and had to be taken away by the cartload, and I got a "rocket" from the colonel for wasting money on "such trash," as he called it.
We must also see, in future, that the men are clothed decently. I remember the occasion of a Royal visit to a particular part of the world in which I was, when one man in the guard of honour actually turned out in a pair of brown boots. That means very little to non-soldiers, but imagine the effect of seeing a man in a guard of honour in brown boots. That is the sort of thing which used to happen in the old days, and I hope it will never happen again. The cause of that was that the Territorial Army Association was functioning so badly that it had not provided that man with boots, and he had to wear his own civilian boots. Then, I would say that the places for the annual training must be chosen with great care, because in spite of all this talk about employers giving extra time for camp, it rarely happened before

the war, and although it may happen in future, I am rather doubtful. In fact, for most officers and men the annual training is the only annual holiday, and a place has to be chosen in which they can have a pleasant holiday, and where they can take their wives. That may seem a queer way of training an Army, but it is a fact, and if we want a real Territorial Army on the old system, one has to think of these matters, and the place of annual training is of the greatest importance.
The last of the points I should like to mention is the important underlying necessity of getting the right unit spirit, the right Territorial spirit. There should be plenty of colour—if one takes away the colour from any of the units there is little else left—bands, flags, all that sort of thing; officers who are interested in their men, and plenty of opportunity for the men to become officers in the unit if they so desire. That means that the unit commanders have to get on with the job themselves. They have to select the right type of junior officers and N.C.Os., men who will be able to put over the type of instruction that is needed, and who will also be able to mix with the men after the day's drill is done, and have a pint of beer in the canteen or the sergeants mess. These suggestions may seem trifling, but they are not. They are important in the building up of a good Territorial unit.
That brings me to this question: how are commanding officers, unit commanders, company commanders and regimental officers chosen? As far as I know, no invitation has been sent to Territorial officers on the active list to remuster, as it were, for service. To me it is a complete mystery how the various commanding officers who have been chosen have, in fact, been chosen. I should have thought that the correct way would have been to circularise all officers on the active list asking them whether they were prepared to serve and then, from those who were willing, to choose the officers most competent for the job. To my knowledge, that has not been done. I was very surprised to hear the other day that a large number of Regular commanding officers have been chosen to fill commanding officer posts in Territorial units because there were not enough Territorials available for this purpose. How does the War Office know? They


have never asked. They do not know how many senior Territorial officers are prepared to serve again. A good Territorial officer in charge of a T.A. regiment or battalion is far better for that purpose than a good Regular officer. I do not say that he is far better for any other purpose.

Mr. Stanley: Does the hon. Gentleman know of any cases where Regulars have been invited to become commanding officers of units unless they have particular local connections?

Mr. Rees-Williams: The only information I have—and the Minister could confirm it—is that I saw that a reply had been given in another place stating the number of Regular officers who had been appointed to command Territorial battalions or regiments. I have forgotten the exact figure, but I think it was about 200, or perhaps not quite as many as that. I know that a friend of mine who commands a Territorial brigade has applied for Regular officers to command the units in that brigade. There is no question of the Regular commanding officer coming from the locality. I should imagine that it would be rare for a Regular officer to command a T.A. unit in the locality to which he belongs. It would he just an accident if it happened.
Finally, in regard to the administration of the Territorial Army, I hope that never again shall we be put into the position that we were in at the beginning of the last war. In peace time the Territorials were administered under an entirely different system from that which appertained the moment war broke out. Regular staff officers, high senior officers to whom I spoke during the war, expressed the view that Territorial officers were very good at tactics—in many cases they were better than the Regulars—but they were weak in administration. Since a number of Territorial officers were businessmen, chartered accountants, solicitors, and the like, it seemed extraordinary that they should be weak in administration. What actually happened was that the Territorial Army Association, which was never mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton, but which is the most important part of the system, functioned in such a way that it administered the units in its area. We were administered under T.A. Regulations. We were clothed

and fed by the Association. A certain amount of money would, in addition, be given the C.O. in a lump sum, and he arranged with the local grocer or a contractor at a seaside resort to feed the men.
On the day war broke out the peacetime system was stopped and we converted to an entirely different system of accounts of clothing, rationing, pay and all the rest. Is there any wonder that criticism was levied at Territorial officers for being bad administrators? They were not bad administrators, as they proved later in the war. The point was that they were put in an impossible position. As in any future war, which we sincerely hope will not take place, there will not be a time lag as there was in the last two wars, I hope that we will not have this double administration which will have to be changed over at a moment's notice. I would like to know from the right hon. Gentleman exactly what part the Territorial Army Association is to play in the future of the Territorial Army, because, except from a general welfare standpoint, I am not terribly keen myself on its playing any part. I think it would be much better if brigade headquarters, or the equivalent units in the various arms, could have on its staff a staff captain to do the administration, and then, immediately war breaks out, there need be no change-over from one system to the other. The same staff officers would then handle the administration and the quartermaster functions. That is one of the main questions which I have to ask my right hon. Friend, and I would like an answer to it.
In the main, I think that it, in the various localities, the spirit of the Territorial Army could be fostered, we need not worry too much about the details. We put up with an awful lot before the war, but without the proper spirit, no matter how many drill halls and other things there are, there will be no happy and efficient Territorial Army.

8.21 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: The biggest headaches of the Territorial Army today are, first of all, to receive proper recognition from the Government spokesmen—because the Government spokesmen never seem to mention the Auxiliary Forces—and, secondly, to find sufficient accommodation.


Schemes are always being put forward to the War Office, but the delay is tremendous. We are supposed to he planning today for 1950. Therefore here and now plans should be completed and work about to start on building proper drill halls, vehicle sheds, hard standings, officers' and N.C.O.s' messes and so on. But, at the moment, there seems to be no Government direction. If a Territorial Army Association asks for authority for accommodation, they are immediately asked how many recruits have volunteered, and it is no secret that the reply to this question must very often be that very few have volunteered. The answer is then given by the War Office that the accommodation cannot be approved because the figures are so low. What is to happen in 1950 unless we plan now, and the moment anybody begins to plan they are told they can do nothing about it? If the accommodation is insufficient now, and if plans are not made to build at once, what is going to happen in 1950, when the first recruits enter the Auxiliary Forces and start to swell the ranks?
Let me give an instance of the sort of thing that has been going on for some time. Nearly a year ago, a certain Territorial Army Association asked for authority to purchase a house. The application had the blessing of the local military commanders, but, today, approval has not yet been given, and, by the time approval is given, the house will probably have been sold. The next step will, therefore, be, I suppose, compulsory purchase, to the ultimate disapproval of local opinion and considerable financial loss to the purchaser who was unfortunate enough to buy the property. To take another instance, all over the country, hutted camps and sites have been handed over to different Ministries without first finding out if they were suitable for the Territorial Army. This was happening last summer during the planning stage. As a result, today these camps are not available, and, even if they were, in most instances, they are quite useless because the timber and fixtures have been removed. This happened all over East and West Lancashire. Was there a plan as regards these camps? Is there any plan today? Are they being kept empty for squatters, or to swell the housing returns of the Ministry of Health? One is forced to the obvious conclusion that the Territorial Army today is suffering for

the same reason as are so many of our poor people without houses—the futility of the Ministry of Health.
In several counties today not one single drill hall is suitably equipped for the storage of modern equipment, or even for vehicles. Commanding officers are not being held up so much by lack of training equipment, but what is the use of having training equipment if there is nowhere to put it? The suggestion I have to make is that instead of doing nothing, which is always wrong, let something be accomplished. Why should not executive authority be given to Territorial Associations, in conjunction with local military commanders, to get on with the job? Why cannot they be given a block grant compatible with their war establishment, and told to get on with it? After all, this was done with considerable success in respect of the Territorial Army in 1939, and also, I believe, with the Army Cadet Force in 1945. In other words, give Territorial Associations executive powers instead of the endless delays which are occurring today through approval having to be obtained for every penny that is spent.
As regards recruiting, there seems to be an impression that, if we cover the countryside with recruiting posters, recruits will start to pour in. That may or may not be the case, but surely the first rule should be to produce an attractive poster. There has been no lack in the quantity of recruiting posters, but I cannot say much of the quality. Take, for instance, the poster illustrating a man in battle dress, grinning from ear to ears fiddling with his gaiters. Very carefully illustrated in the background is a chair on which is placed a very smart suit of plain clothes, together with a shirt, a hat, a collar and a tie, etc. One's first reaction on looking at that poster is the same as we all had after this war. We say to ourselves, "Lucky man. There he is, taking off his battle dress for the last time, and about to put on that very smart suit of plain clothes provided absolutely free at the taxpayer's expense. Civvy street, once more," and so on. But then we find that the soldier is smiling, not because he is taking his uniform off but because he is putting it on, having been asked to join the Territorial Army.
Why not leave out the suit of plain clothes altogether; why not illustrate


instead a man in battle dress sitting down in the mess about to consume a nice, large square meal that he cannot get in Civvy Street? Why not show him in the N.A.A.F.I., with a pretty lady behind the bar giving him the choice of everything he wants to buy? Possibly, also, there might be a sign with such words as, "No watered beer here," and, instead of, "Volunteer with me for the Territorial Army, nine divisions strong, with modern equipment," put in bold letters, "The same privileges as the miners." There might be some point in that. Give him an incentive to join the privileged classes, with plenty of good food and an opportunity to buy the many things the people of this country cannot obtain. Finally, as regards publicity, I suggest that what is required is a national drive on the same basis as the "Work and Want" poster which is displayed at every street corner—I mean "Work or Want." Money has been issued by the War Office for publicity at a county level but this is of little use without a national drive.
As regards the Army Cadet Force, the great difficulty is in finding the necessary number of suitable officers, the lack of sufficient staff and, of course, accommodation. The Army Cadet Force is entirely dependent on the officer with local personality, and in many cases it is very difficult to get hold of sufficient numbers. As regards staff, all that is available is an ex-soldier who carries out administrative duties and also the duties of training instruction. This overworked N.C.O. is, I understand, being withdrawn on 31st August, so there will be little left except volunteers and a Territorial instructor who will take over the duties of the ex-soldier. Incidentally, this Territorial instructor will already be overworked in his own T.A. unit. Therefore, in future A.C.F. units have got to depend on the local P.S.I. and their own N.C.O.s and officers of whom, as I have already said, there are already far too few.
To improve recruiting, improve training and, above all, to make an efficient cadet force. I would like to make the following suggestions. At the moment the A.C.F. is an entirely independent command. Why not marry it up, or tie it up—I have rather forgotten all my military clichés—with the Territorial Army? Why not make the local Cadet Force the fifth

or cadet company in a Territorial Battalion? Surely, this is the obvious answer, because in time, fathers, brothers, uncles, cousins, friends and relations and so on will all be serving in the same unit, and this should prove an added incentive to recruiting. If the call-up is properly organised, a boy joining the A.C.F. should be called into that arm of the Service which is represented in his own locality. He would thus be able to serve from the age of 14 to 24½, with the exception of his one year's compulsory service, in his local unit. Having raised a Territorial Battalion myself, I can say, from my own experience, that there is no greater incentive to recruiting than having local friends and relations in the same unit. Such units are always the best. They have a pride and comradeship which is unbeatable and certainly in Knutsford, was second to none. They beat all recruiting records in 1938. In that small country town I raised a whole battalion in three days, and had to stop recruiting, such was their spirit. The fact that the Territorial Army and the Army Cadet Force were under one command would surely mean easier administration, far fewer losses in equipment, and, above all, infinitely better results and less unnecessary work.
If this proposal were carried out, it would entail all sorts of details with which I will not weary the Committee. For instance, the Cadet Company would have to have separate social accommodation. We should not want these young boys to learn bad habits too early in life, such as drinking of watered beer, so deplored by the hon. Member for West Ealing (Mr. J. Hudson), or the smoking of "twopenny Daltons" so frowned upon by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. For some reason it seems to be considered that a commanding officer has no personal expenditure. He has just the same type of personal expenditure as is incurred by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee and by all types of businesses. But the snag is that whereas businesses and so on can deduct the amount spent on entertainment for business purposes for Income Tax relief, a commanding officer cannot do so. He has to pay it out of income which has already been taxed. Surely, that is not fair. Why cannot a commanding officer have the


same sort of expenses allowance as, for example, the local Army welfare officer who gets £30 a year? The same applies to the second-in-command, and the suggested amount is £20 a year. But it is inevitable that a commanding officer who, during day time hours is engaged in earning his own living, will during his leisure hours spend money out of his own pocket to benefit his own battalion. For instance, telephone calls, returning hospitality from local government officials, formation commanders, and so on.
Finally, I come to the person who is hardly ever referred to. He carries the greatest expenditure of all, and certainly does as much work as anyone. I refer to the chairman of the territorial associations. In the old days these people were found from a section of the community that gave most of their lives to public work for no remuneration whatsoever. Today they do not ask for remuneration. Nobody ever hears them ask for anything except the benefit of the Auxiliary Forces. They are glad, indeed, to serve their country for absolutely nothing. But what does it cost them? Let us make no mistake about it: it costs them a packet. They have, at least, six general meetings a year and, in addition, 12 general purposes and at least 12 miscellaneous meetings. In the old days—or, rather, it is the same today: it is an old custom—on these occasions to entertain certain members of the committees to lunch, all of whom incidentally also work for nothing. On top of all this, a chairman has other duties, such as the co-ordination of the welfare services, Red Cross, and so on. On the cheap, counting every sixpence, and every incidental expense, a chairman is lucky if he is out of pocket for less than £50 a year. More likely it will be £75, and quite possibly £100 a year. This comes out of income which is already taxed. Cannot these people be given an entertainment grant? Some chairmen, no doubt, would not accept it. But, nevertheless, is it fair, is it right that the appointments of chairmen should be limited to the people who can afford to entertain others at their own expense?

8.37 p.m.

Mr. Sidney Shephard: As a member of a Territorial Forces association I shall confine my remarks to one

or two of the practical aspects of the matter we are discussing tonight. If the foundations of the Territorial Army are to be well and truly laid, the main responsibility will fall on the small nucleus of officers and other ranks who have already joined. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head), who so ably opened this Debate, queried the number who had already joined. So far as my own county is concerned, the number is very small, and I think it is in every county. At the moment we have—this is the latest figure—53 officers and 160 other ranks. But, frankly, I am glad the number is small, and I should be very worried, indeed, if the number were very large. But these pioneers, many of them, are men who were in the Territorial Army long before the war. They are keen; they are enthusiastic; and they are eager to get on with the job. Already, after only 2½ months of recruiting, one can begin to see signs of pessimism and frustration. If that is not very quickly changed, and if they are not given encouragement and facilities to carry out the training, there is a danger of their throwing their hand in, and then we shall lose the very backbone of this new Territorial Army. We must remember that the Territorial Army of the future will be very different from the Territorial Army of the past, and in two or three years' time it will be mainly of conscripts; and some of them, I venture to say, will be unwilling soldiers. For that reason we must rely on the volunteers for the success of the Territorial Army.
At the moment, the Territorial Army is suffering from a good many growing pains, and I want to refer to two or three of the more important ones. The first, on which almost everything else depends, is the provision of adequate training grounds. Last week I put a Question to the Secretary of State for War and asked him when it was proposed to provide training grounds and buildings for Territorial units. His answer was:
As far as possible Territorial units will use the training areas allocated to the Regular Army. Where this is not practicable, arrangements will be made to provide sufficient training ground locally. Requirements for training areas for the.Territorial Army not exceeding 50 acres which do not involve the use of live ammunition or tracked vehicles will be discussed locally by Territorial Army Associations with local authorities in the near future."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 15th July. 1945 Vol 440, c. 212–31]


To my mind, that is begging the question. We know that a certain amount of training can be performed in drill halls and on open spaces. But where there are restrictions on training grounds agreed between the Territorial Association and the local authority that, for instance—I do not say no live ammunition, because think that is perfectly justifiable—no tracked vehicle will be used, how can they possibly train either an R.A. field unit equipped with self-propelled guns mounted on tank chassis, or mechanised yeomanry units using A.F.Vs.?
Let me take my own county as an example. We have a local field regiment of the R.A. which has two guns, both of which are sitting in a drill hall at the moment. If they want to move those guns out, which are mounted on tank chassis, they must get the permission of the police and also of the local authority. Since they are to be denied the use of those guns on any site which might be agreed between the Territorial Association and the local authority, what possible chance have they of doing proper training? My own local yeomanry regiment, which is mechanised and uses A.F.Vs., has been supplied with one set of driving and maintenance equipment, one set of gunnery training equipment, and one set of wireless training equipment. Now, there are three squadrons. All this equipment cannot be at one squadron headquarters, so they have had to divide it between the three squadrons, each part of the equipment is limited to the people living in that particular area, and no squadron can be trained in more than one part of the regiment's equipment.
I put no faith in this getting together of the local authority and the Territorial Association to find a ground not exceeding 50 acres, and so on. I think the answer is that there should be a centralised training ground in each county where the whole of the equipment, of all the units in the county if you wish, can be centralised, and where every branch of the training can be carried out, and to which the subunits can go for the weekend camps in the summer.

Mr. Scollan: Is there no equipment for the Territorial Army to fight against the atomic bomb?

Mr. Shephard: I am not concerned with that at all. That is a quite unnecessary interruption. I am discussing the practical problems of the Territorial Association.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. John Freeman): Is the hon. Member suggesting that the equipment of each local unit should be kept away from the cadres of each unit, and centralised and maintained on one training area?

Mr. Shephard: I suggest there should be a centralised training ground for all units in the county, so that it cannot be very far away from any one of them. The Under-Secretary knows that in many parts of the country there are redundant aerodromes. These are ideal as training centres. They have adequate messing and sleeping quarters, hangars to house the equipment, and, more important still, concrete runways, without which A.F.V.'s cannot be exercised. It seems to me that the Secretary of State for War should consult with the Secretary of State for Air to see whether some of these redundant aerodromes cannot be released for the Army.
My next point is on the question of the annual camps. I put down a Question last week to the Prime Minister, which was passed on to the Treasury. I asked:
If it is intended to grant an additional holiday to men employed in Government Departments who join the T.A.
Mr. GLENVIL HALL: Yes. His Majesty's Government hope to make very shortly a general statement on this question of the holidays of those who volunteer for service with the Auxiliary Forces. This statement will cover the particular point referred to by the hon. Member."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th July, 1947: Vol 440, c. 21.]
I hope that the statement will be made tonight, because we must know about this point. It was not unusual before the war for a man who went to camp without permission to be sacked when he returned to his employer. I hope that we have seen the last of that. It is up to the Government and to the local authorities to set an example, and we should be glad to know what is their attitude in this respect. Can we be told what is the legal position of the man who goes to camp without permission? Is it the same as before the war and, if so, is the position to be altered? We have to give these men every encouragement to go to camp, and I do not want to see a situation


where a man is jeopardised simply by going to camp. What is to be the attitude in regard to the nationalised industries? I know that the National Coal Board have refused to allow any of their men to join the Territorial Army. There may be a good reason for that, but we ought to have a general statement covering all nationalised industries, showing the attitude of the Government in this respect.
Then there is the question of the duration of the camps. As I understand it, for the time being the duration is to be either eight days or 15 days, which is optional. Most commanding officers are in favour of either one or the other; they would of course prefer 15 days. If the period is for eight days, two days are taken up in getting settled in, and two days in closing down, which leaves only four days for training. If the period is optional, we are likely to have a position where perhaps 75 per cent. of the men go to camp for eight days, leaving only 25 per cent. to carry on for the full period of 15 days. In those circumstances, one might just as well close the camp down. My remaining points are small but important. It has been laid down that the tour of duty of a regular commanding officer of a Territorial unit shall be one year. In my opinion, and in the opinion of many of my friends, that is not nearly sufficient. In one year he has just about absorbed the local atmosphere. It may take him some months to find a house, and it will certainly take him more than a year to get to know his unit as intimately as a commanding officer should. I hope that we shall hear something about that when the Minister comes to reply.
Then there is a certain amount of dissatisfaction with regard to the commissioning of new officers for the Territorial Army. Under the present rule, no officer can be appointed to the Territorial Army unless he has previously served as an officer. That seems wrong. Fine fellows who have become warrant officers, first-class non-commissioned officers, are, at present, barred from becoming officers in the Territorial Army. They have been given a sort of promise that some time in the future O.C.T.U.s will be set up, but we do not know the conditions, or how long a man must serve in such an O.C.T.U. If it was to be for three months it would completely rule out most of these

men. I ask the War Office seriously to look into this matter, which is causing disappointment to many keen N.C.O.s who have joined the Territorial Army. One further point: Regular commanding officers, adjutants, and their permanent staff are being unfairly treated in the matter of allowances, which are based on barrack allowances. We all know how difficult it is, and what high rentals we have to pay, if we go into a strange part of the country. Yet these men are having to pay these increased charges, and in fairness some additional allowance should be made to them to cover the increased cost of living.
My last point is to suggest that when a man is called up for military service he should be put into the regiment affiliated to his local Territorial unit. If, for argument's sake, a man in Nottingham-shire is called up to the Royal Armoured Corps his local Territorial unit will be the Sherwood Rangers, which is affiliated to the 17/21st Lancers. If he can be posted to that unit he will have continuity of interest between the parent regiment and the Territorial regiment. Finally on 1st November the new training year begins, and I hope that by then the War Office will have organised a Department to deal with all problems connected with the Territorial Army. I hope they will not take the view that there is no hurry because there will not be any conscripts coming along until 1949. If they do that they will be starting off on the wrong foot, and no steps which can be taken later will retrieve the position. I hope that when the Minister replies he will be able to give me some assurances on the points I have raised tonight.

8.54 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: The discussion we have had tonight on the subject of the Territorial Army has elicited a number of useful and constructive suggestions, all of which, I hope, will receive the attention they undoubtedly deserve. The hon. Member for Newark (Mr. S. Shephard) put his finger on what is a real difficulty in recruiting—the uncertainty about annual camps, and the effect which going to camp may have on the employment of recruits in the Territorial Army or of those who may be thinking of joining. Notwithstanding the doleful prognostications of hon. Members opposite, there are many people in the


country who are neither civil servants nor local government employees; they are employed in various private undertakings. In many cases they find it extremely difficult, as it makes their future precarious, to get away to annual camps on joining the Territorial Army. I hope that there will be some kind of statement tonight or at a later date which will offer some degree of security to these men who want to serve, but who naturally do not want to prejudice their whole economic future, as may well be the case at the present time.
The uncertainty surrounding the whole of the recruiting campaign has had the most unfortunate results. It was due to start, we have been told by the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head), on 1st April of this year. For some reason, the opening of the campaign was postponed. There is a degree of uncertainty in a number of Territorial units as to what exactly they are to do about it. At the moment, vast quantities of paper and reams of instructions are being issued by the appropriate branch of the War Office to Territorial associations and to the respective units, all of which, I fear, are tending to bog down the prospects of an immediate or real drive in the near future. I will give one example of the kind of thing that is going on at the present time. I know of one anti-tank regiment quite near to the Metropolitan area—I do not wish to be more precise than that—where, so far, only 25 recruits have been obtained—eight officers and 17 other ranks. That cannot be regarded as a good example of a recruiting drive, nor can it be regarded as an incentive to those men who are working very hard to build up these local formations.
So far as the Territorial associations are concerned, I think that there is considerable room for improvement. We have heard that they are to be made more comprehensive, more representative of the interests of our social, industrial and economic life. I am wondering to what extent that provision has actually been put into operation. There is, I think, reason to fear that in more than one case Territorial associations have not yet got out of the old prewar atmosphere in which they formerly carried out their work. The hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford

(Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport) made some interesting suggestions about recruiting. Recruitment does not depend on posters or parades. He suggested that more recruits might be obtained for T.A. units if one of the inducements was to show on the posters an attractive girl serving behind a N.A.A.F.I. canteen. That might, however, act as a deterrent to married men, whose wives might not be quite so keen to let their husbands join the local T.A. units if that kind of inducement were held out.
The fundamental difficulty of the Territorial Army has been that we have tried to do it on the cheap. We cannot hope to achieve any success in this sphere if we work in the old cheese-paring atmosphere which has cramped and stifled Territorial activities in the past. One point has been made by hon. Members which I would like to emphasise as strongly as possible. I am prepared to assert without fear of contradiction that it is impossible for any Territorial Army officer to carry out his duties in the Territorial Army today without being considerably out-of-pocket. Why should this additional liability be imposed on men who want to serve in the Territorial Army, and who are deterred from doing so because they know that unavoidably they will be considerably out of pocket at the end of the year? It is very important that my right hon. Friend should devise adequate means of relieving the burden on these men. Something has been done to lift the burden on other ranks by freeing efficiency bounties from Income Tax, but officers do not get efficiency bounties and that particular concession is of no advantage to them.
I am sorry that as my time is short it is not possible for me to dwell upon all those very interesting suggestions that have been made with the fullness that they deserve. There is one final point I should like to make. It is that attention should be given to linking up the Army Cadet Force with the Territorial Army. Personally, I do not like the name Army Cadet Force. I would prefer Junior Territorial Army, which I think would get young people to join more easily than is the case at the moment. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will take a serious view of the situation and remember that, if practical and definite results are to be achieved, more adequate guarantees have


to be given and no attempt made to try to run the Territorial Army at a bargain basement price.

9.2 p.m.

General Sir George Jeffreys (Peters-field): May I in the first place express my appreciation of what I might call the unsolicited testimonial paid by the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Lt.-Colonel Bromley Davenport) to the chairmen of Territorial associations. I have been one of that variety for a good many years but I should like to say this, that although they do a great deal of work which possibly might be recognised, I do not think my hon. and gallant Friend was right in suggesting that we have to spend a lot of money in entertaining all and sundry. I certainly never have done so myself and I do not think that many chairmen have done so. I certainly do not think that there should be any entertainment allowance as he suggests. I agree with him and with the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) that some form of closer union—I would put it no higher than that—of the Army Cadet Force with the Territorial Army is undoubtedly desirable and might be of great use to both Forces.
I want to say a few words on Territorial Army recruiting, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State will believe me when I say that I am not saying anything in a party spirit but solely with a view if possible to be of use to the Territorial Army. I am very grateful, as are many hon. Members concerned at the concessions which were made, and which were alluded to by the hon. and gallant Member for Brixton, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as regards Income Tax on Territorial Allowances and efficiency bounties. I believe it would have been a great handicap had it remained, and it will be of very great importance that the Income Tax upon them has been done away with.
Recruiting is not going ahead as it ought to, and I believe there are two principal reasons for that. One is the uncertainty of recruits as to what will be the attitude of their employers regarding leave for the 15 days' camp; and, secondly, the uncertainty of employers as to conditions regarding the camp, or as to how the camp leave for the Territorial Army men can be reconciled with the demand for a great production drive. At present there

is really something like deadlock. The employee will not join until he knows what the attitude of the employer is going to be, and the employer will not commit himself until he knows how many men and how much money, as far as he is concerned, are going to be involved. A question which is also being alluded to is that of leave being given by Government Departments to Territorials in their employ. Of course, they ought to set an example and in some cases they are doing so, but they should not claim any great credit for it because they are not only helping the Government's national scheme but are also doing it not at their own expense but at the expense of the taxpayers.
I should like for a moment to refer to a letter which I have here from the manager of a very large firm and which deals with certain matters concerning recruiting. I sent this letter to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, and he was good enough to tell me that he was considering these matters very carefully, but I think that a very early decision is required upon them. In the first place this manager says that he had not been approached at all on any high level. I do not know whether he regards the chairmen of Territorial associations as being high enough, but, in any case, he had not been approached from a high level and he knew very little about the scheme. In an age of federations, unions, combines and Government control he thought that a directive should be given to all firms. He wished to know the relative importance of the Territorial Army and the much talked of production drive.
He was doubtful about letting men go for 15 days' camp, since in a mass production factory the loss of a number of hands might disorganise production. He could see little justification for the employer being asked to pay for what is a national commitment by giving full wages for men's time spent in camp, or even by making up the difference between their Territorial Army pay and wages. He said, further, that he was not prepared to act until a directive from the Engineering and Allied Employers Federation in London was given Those are certain points of view of a fairly typical works manager, and I think that they are matters which ought to be very carefully considered and on which a de-


cision ought to be given very soon—as I represented to the right hon. Gentleman on a previous occasion. If we are to get anything of a Territorial Army of the kind which will be necessary—not only to keep things going to provide a Territorial Army now, but also to absorb the National Service men in two years' time—we must get men quickly.
Then there is the question of quarters for permanent staff, about which there have been difficulties in some places. I hope that consideration will be given to this matter, because it is very important. If we send out permanent staff instructors, not only may they have very considerable expenses, as has already been pointed out, but if they have no suitable quarters in which to live they will certainly not be able to function. Altogether, I think it is of very great importance that things should be made as little difficult as possible for Territorial Army personnel. In reply to some of the questions which I and other hon. Members have raised, we have been told that it is just the same for other people in matters of motor mileage, the petrol allowance, and so on, and that it is the same for civilians or for regular officers. But there is not the transport which Regular officers have, and it is not quite the same for civilians. T.A. officers are asked to do things which civilians do not have to do, and we cannot be too generous to Territorial soldiers in making it easy and not difficult for them to carry out their duties.
Another question is that of equipment. I am aware of a case, which I do not say is in my own county, in which Territorial units have asked for equipment, but have been told that they must get the men first. That means that there is nothing with which to train the men, and men are not anxious to come along. It is very important also to recognise that we are not asking for recruits in the ordinary sense, but for trained men who have served and who want to come back. There are two conditions which must be fulfilled. One is that the Territorial Army must be fit for service without a long period having to be given for training, and, secondly, cadres must be available in order to absorb the National Service men when they come along in due course. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will recognise the urgency

of giving a decision and of making an announcement on the question of what is going to be asked of employers and what is going to be done for employees when they join the Territorial Army, in regard to the question of attending camp. That matter is of the utmost importance. I do not believe that we shall get all the men we want until that question is finally settled and a satisfactory answer has been given.

9.11 p.m.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: This is an important matter, which raises no party controversy. As a result, we have had on both sides of the Committee speeches devoted entirely to constructive suggestions to help the cause behind which all of us are united. Only the fact that the Under-Secretary of State for War is not here has emboldened me to intervene. Otherwise, he might challenge me as to my military credentials for taking part in a Debate on the Army Estimates. I have been in the Territorials in my time, and I have since had a great many connections with the Territorial Army. I cannot claim to speak with as recent or as long an experience as the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. Rees-Williams), but I think he would agree with me that it is dangerous in existing circumstances to put too much reliance on our prewar experience of the Territorial Army. We have to recognise the fundamental change which has been brought over the Territorial Army by the decision which the House has recently taken. As an example, I was a little amused when the hon. Member for South Croydon chided my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head) for not having in his speech either mentioned or shown any realisation of the existence of the Territorial Army associations, while the hon. Member himself, during a fairly long and most interesting speech, never mentioned or showed any realisation whatsoever of the existence of the National Service Act.

Mr. Rees-Williams: I think I introduced my speech by saying that I agreed with much of what had been said by the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head), and that I would not waste the time of the Committee by reiterating that interesting part relating to the National Service Act.

Mr. Stanley: All are agreed that we have to look at the Territorials in the light of our own experience, and also in the light of the wholly new functions which face them under the arrangement to which I have referred. The first and most important question which has been brought out in the Debate, and on which all of us are anxious to hear the answer by the Secretary of State, is, what precisely is supposed to be the function of the Territorial Army in the interim period between now and the start of the full flood of the National Service Act recruits to the Territorials? Assuming that we shall get recruits according to whatever scale we think desirable—some may question whether we shall, in fact be able to do so—what is it that we want the Territorial Army to be in the next two or three years? Is it to be a cadre or is it to be a unit, not, of course, at full strength, but a unit which it would be possible to function as a unit, and yet have within it room to absorb those coming out under the National Service Act?
The very discussion we have had this evening shows what confusion there is among all of us as to what is the actual desire of the War Office. I agree with the hon. Member for South Croydon. I do not believe that the Territorial Army can function over the next three or four years merely on a cadre basis. It is asking a great deal of a small cadre of potential instructors to come together and then wait for three years until they have anybody to instruct. It is only as a unit, even if a unit below full mobilisation strength, that we can maintain and develop the Territorial spirit during the next three years and thus have a really efficient machine to take care of the conscripts when they begin to come out. We must, of course, remember something else, that whatever our beliefs and hopes may be, the War Office has always to be ready for eventualities. I imagine that the War Office will be looking immediately to the Territorial Army to perform certain functions in the case of an emergency and will start to put certain reliance on it. In my submission, those functions cannot be discharged if the units are to be recruited merely on a cadre basis.
That brings me to the second point. It is all very well laying down an objective that each unit should be of fuller strength, but in view of the actual experience of recruiting in the last few

months, is it any good striving, even if we believed it to be right to strive, for more than a cadre function in the Territorial unit? Perhaps tonight the right hon. Gentleman will give us some up-to-date figures on recruiting as a whole. My own impression is that not only has it been generally disappointing, but that there has within the general range been very marked disparities as between units. Here and there units with good traditions or with the right personalities for commanding officers have been moderately successful, and other have been almost complete failures. We want to hear tonight from the Secretary of State what is the actual position of Territorial recruiting, how disappointed he is, and what prospects on present lines he sees for the future.
I cannot believe from all I hear that he can express himself as being satisfied with what has happened so far, nor that he will be able to refrain from expressing the hope that there will be a very considerable improvement in the future on the experience of the past. That brings us to the third point which we have been discussing tonight, and that is what can be done to improve Territorial recruiting. There have been from all sides of the Committee a great many interesting suggestions, for which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will be grateful, and on which, no doubt, during the course of his speech, he will want to comment. I am certain that the most potent thing to bring recruits into a unit is a general feeling that it is a good show. You may in the stress of an emergency looming closely before you, as in 1939, be prepared to put up with improvisations and general discomfort, and what appears to be a certain amount of disorganisation; you are not prepared to do so under conditions of today, and nothing puts off a potential recruit more than some material lack which makes him think that the show is not a good one or is not one in which the authorities are particularly interested.
I cannot agree with the interesting suggestion made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton that, in view of the shortage, it is a good thing to make drill halls out of two sardine tins and an empty beer bottle. Even if we could do it, I believe that kind of improvisation, useful as it is for the purpose of training, is a great deterrent to recruiting, and the Secretary of


State for War has to face up to the fact that if he wants these recruits, if the Government want these recruits, if they think as we do that it is vitally important to get these recruits, the Government have to take the steps which will give them the idea that they are wanted and that when they have joined they will be properly used. In other words, if they want drill halls they must have them, and not tin sheds, and if we can only give them drill halls even by giving them priority over housing schemes, then it has to be given, unless you are prepared to say that this is not of so much importance to the security of the country as to warrant priority.
The same with equipment. I do not know what is the general standards of equipment now being issued, but I do know of one rather technical unit where the equipment given so far is extremely disappointing and is quite enough to put off any recruit who, after all, is a trained man, knows what he was getting and ought to be getting, and then sees what is actually to be provided for him.
Finally, on the material side, there is the question of money—the small grants to which many hon. Members have referred. I shall not go over them again in detail, but I think that kind of thing, small in itself, makes an enormous difference when you are trying to attract a number of people into these shows, in a way against their will, because quite clearly, after seven years of service, there is a natural reaction against serving again, and that has to be overcome. You do not help to overcome it by imposing on them a number of petty restrictions and handicaps and losses which, when all added up, do not make half an hour's difference to the whole of the national expenditure, yet, in individual cases, may act as a great discouragement.
So on these material things which have to be done for the Territorials, I ask the Secretary of State to carry out his responsibility in this matter, which I know he must feel deeply. He must know that unless he can, in the next three years, build up this Territorial force, the National Service Act which we have passed during this year will be the biggest fiasco in history. It will be proved completely futile, and will have a damaging effect not

only on the individuals concerned, but on the whole of our national security. He must feel his responsibility for making a success of it and he must, as I am sure he does, realise with his colleagues who have to bear that responsibility with him, that he is entitled to demand, and that he should demand, what is necessary to make the thing work.
I can conceive of no more silly policy in a matter of this kind than to be penny wise and pound foolish, to make small economies when what you are doing, if only you do it properly, is the biggest economy you can ever make—because if this fails you have not an opportunity of having so much of your Army or your reserves run on the cheap as the Territorial Army was able to do it before the war. Therefore, we appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to listen to the suggestions that have been put forward tonight, to adopt them as his own, and to press them on the Cabinet with all the vigour which the situation demands. Let him tackle the Chancellor. He will not find, when he comes to tackle him, that the Chancellor is really as bad as all that—his bark is worse than his bite; he has a very loud bark but comparatively blunt teeth. The right hon. Gentleman will have on this occasion the intense sympathy of all Members of the Committee who, even if the Debate tonight has had to be curtailed, have all felt that we are dealing with a subject of infinite importance to the future of the defences of this country and, as such, perhaps the future of our national security.

9.26 p.m.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Ballenger): I think the Committee will regret that we have not had a longer opportunity tonight to discuss this most important matter more fully; nevertheless, we are grateful for the suggestions which have been made from all quarters of the Committee. In a very instructive, and, if I may say so, in comparison with the previous Debate, a very conciliatory manner, both the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) and the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head) expressed the hope that I realised my responsibility for recruiting the Territorial Army in readiness for the important functions they have to undertake when the National Service reservists flood in after having done their 12 months' compulsory training.
I realise that only too well and I am afraid that many of these problems on which hon. Members have touched tonight will give me many more grey hairs than I possess at the moment before I am able to overcome them. I shall not he able to overcome them without goodwill and assistance from all parts of the House and all sections of the community; that is why we shall be appealing constantly to those different sections to help us in these matters. Not only have I to recruit the Territorial Army but, at the same time, I have to recruit the Regular Army and, looming over them both, is the shortage of manpower. It will not be an easy matter and, although I am by no means a pessimist, nevertheless I think it will be an extremely difficult job. I do not under-estimate it and in my speech tonight I shall attempt to indicate the manner in which we shall try to prepare that most important part of the defence of our country.
That brings me to what I may call the rôle of the Territorial Army. The right hon. Gentleman posed the question as to what precisely is to be the function of the Territorial Army during the next two or three years. I would prefer to indicate what is to be the function of the Territorial Army, and then he will see, as will other hon. Members, what generally will happen during the next two or three years. In its postwar era, the Territorial Army will assume quite a different rôle from that which it had before the war. It will be a much more balanced force than it was in prewar days. I am not speaking of the immediate prewar days when the Territorial Army was doubled, and was in readiness for the war which was then not far ahead; I am speaking generally of the inter-war period. In those days, the Territorial Army was a sort of reserve for the Regular Army which was to form the spearhead of any active operations overseas. In the last war and in the previous one, the Regular Army was mainly organised to send an expeditionary force overseas, and the rôle of the Territorial Army before the war was really to supplement those efforts, but more on a unit scale than on a formation scale. That will entirely alter under our plans, because the Territorial Army, apart from the responsibility they will assume in the antiaircraft defence of this country, will be formed in formations, complete and ready

to take their position alongside whatever Regular Forces may be necessary to meet the emergency if and when it arises.
That indicates, of course, that we have to bring the Territorial Army up to a very high standard of training indeed, and it would he futile for me to try to convince the House that the Territorial reservist, when he has finished his 12 months' Regular training and takes his place in the ranks of the Territorial Army, will be a trained man. He will be largely trained, it is true, but in regard to some arms of the Force, he will obviously have to finish his technical training while he is serving as a Territorial. Tonight our main concern is with the volunteers, the volunteer Territorial Army, which will be there to receive the National Service reservist when he comes out, and, assisted by the Regular element, which will go to stiffen the Territorial Army, will be able to train that reservist when he has finished his 12 months' service. These volunteers will be different from the National Service man inasmuch as they will be trained men themselves. Both officers and men will be recruited from the ranks of those who have served in this war, and who have had comparatively recent war experience. That will not be easy, because with the best will in the world, and with all the patriotism which these officers and men have, they have to rehabilitate themselves after probably several years absence during this war. That is probably the reason why, up to the present, we have not been able to get the results we anticipated in voluntary recruitment. I will say a word in a few moments as to the figures.
As regards the operational role of the Territorial Army, I said a few moments ago that the Territorial soldiers will be organised in complete formations, and will also be responsible to a large extent for the anti-aircraft defences of this country. At the present moment, we have have had to supply some Regular soldiers to man some of the ack-ack defence units, which are now being formed. We hope that as time goes on these antiaircraft defences of this country will be largely undertaken by the Territorial Army. Nevertheless, a considerable nucleus of Regulars will also be necessary for that purpose. I think I have indicated that the Territorial Army is not necessarily for home defence, even in those anti-aircraft units.
It the occasion should arise to send an expeditionary force or an army overseas, then the ack-ack defences for that army, to a certain extent, will be recruited from the Territorial ranks here, always bearing in mind that we must not denude the defences of this country, at any rate not the ack-ack defences, until we can find something better to deal with the things that come from overseas through the air.
Having said those brief words on the rôle of the Territorial Army, I now come to what is being done in regard to recruiting. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol asked if I would give figures. I am in a position to give some figures which are the latest, stating the position up to the end of June. We have recruited 4,236 officers, 106 A.T.S. Territorial officers, 14,322 other ranks and 1,920 A.T.S. other ranks, making a grand total of 4,342 officers and 16,242 other ranks. By a quick piece of mental arithmetic, hon. Members will see that that is just over 20,000. That is not as many as we anticipated, but we are not surprised that things have not gone as well as we had hoped because we started off at the wrong end of the season. Those experienced in recruiting will know that the summer months are not generally good months for harvesting recruits either for the Regular or the Territorial Army. However, we were determined to make a start. There was a difference of opinion between different county associations whether 1st May was the right date to start, or 1st September. When discussions went on in the War Office I took the line, "Let us get ahead and make a start; let us see what we can do." We have got in something like 20,000 and I say that in relation to what we want it is not a bad start, when one takes into account all the difficulties which have been enumerated by so many hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the Committee.
We have purposely told the associations that at the moment concentration should be on cadres and not on the filling up of the ranks of a unit. If anything, we are going more for quality than quantity, though we should like very much to get quantity as well. It is no good us getting a large quantity of recruits if the drill-halls and the establishments, the key-men, the

officers and senior N.C.O.'s, are not there to receive them. Nothing discourages a recruit more than to find when he gets to the headquarters that there is nothing much doing. Therefore, we have concentrated mainly on cadres. But—and I hope that this answers the point made by the right hon. Gentleman—this is only for the moment. As the months go on, we hope to convert these cadres into something much more solid than that. Most of the permanent staff is there, in spite of all the difficulties, and there are immense difficulties, as hon. Members have pointed out. The commanding officers have been appointed, as have the formation commanders. Commanders of the higher formations, the divisional commanders, will be the district commanders. At the moment we have had to find more Regular officers to fill the ranks of unit commanding officers because we cannot get gentlemen with time to devote to what is now a most onerous duty. Nevertheless, we hope that, as time goes on, and as Territorial Army requirements are more widely known in the counties, more Territorial commanding officers will be forthcoming. We have made arrangements for the training of these senior commanding officers, if they should be forthcoming, and, for example, we have arranged a special combined operations course for August, but I regret that the response we have had amongst Territoral officers is so small that it will be difficult to fill the vacancies for that course.

Major Legge-Bourke: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the subject of commanding officers, could he possibly tell the Committee whether he would consider amending the original tenure of commanding officers in order to get the cadres going properly?

Mr. Bellenger: I shall have something to say about the length of tenure of these commanding officers in a moment or two. About equipment, on the whole, I am satisfied that, for the present, at any rate, there is all the up-to-date equipment required, and by up-to-date, I mean in relation to the Regular Army, because those who served in the later stages of the war will know that equipment was rapidly going out of date in some respects then, and I imagine that, at some time in the not-too-distant future, there will have to be some heavy expense for re-


equipping the Regular Army, and the House will have to face up to that problem at some time or other. We cannot always go on living on our fat, as the expression goes. We finished the war with a lot of good equipment, much of it American, which we cannot hope to continue, because it is wearing out and we cannot get the spare parts, nor do we propose to rely on American equipment. Therefore, we shall for some time have to have more up-to-date equipment for the Regular Army, and that includes the Territorial Army, but, for the moment, the equipment question is not a serious one for the Territorial Army. So long as they really have need of it, that is to say, so long as they have the recruits to train, they can drew on the stores of the Regular Army.

Mr. S. Shephard: May I take it that that policy will give the Territorial Army the opportunity of getting the out-of-date equipment when the Regular Army ceases to use it?

Mr. Bellenger: No, Sir. We shall endeavour—indeed, if the Territorial Army is going to fill that rôle which I have outlined, then, obviously, they must have up-to-date equipment, especially anti-aircraft equipment, otherwise, if an emergency should arise, they would not ready to function in the rôle which has been assigned to them.
I am rushing along very quickly, because there are so many different points which hon. Gentlemen have raised that time will not permit me to deal at length with every individual item. When we come to the question of deterrents to recruiting, I should think that accommodation is the highest or biggest deterrent. There is no doubt about it, just as in civil life or in ordinary industrial life, if we have a good and well found factory, or a good, comfortable home, we can generally obtain not only the people to fill the homes but also the people to fill the factories. Similarly, with the Territorial Army, there is no doubt that we are sadly lacking in sufficient accommodation. Many Territorial buildings were built for the prewar Territorial Army, and they differ greatly from the requirements of the Army with which we are concerned. Moreover, many of these Territorial headquarters were used during the war, not only for different purposes

by the Army, but in some cases were taken over by other Government Departments.
The Committee have probably little idea what a battle I sometimes fight to extract my own buildings from my colleagues; nevertheless, the battle goes on, and, little by little, we are recovering what belonged to the Territorial Army, and are dealing, in addition, with a large amount of new accommodation which will be required. In response to the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton I would say that, in that respect, we are engaged in using temporary premises and temporary methods of construction wherever we can. We may not go so far as to use some shack or shanty as, I think, he wished, but we are using, for example, huts surplus to Army requirements, and are transferring them from one site to another in order to help the local units to get their headquarters.
I am bound to remind the Committee that, in spite of what hon. Gentlemen opposite may say, there is at the present time a building drive for the civilian population. That means that the biggest priority—and, I suppose, only rightly—is being given to civilian demands at the moment. Nevertheless, I am neglecting no opportunity of getting whatever priority I can. I am convinced that the Territorial Army must be treated pari passu with the Regular Army in their requirements. In that respect, I would like to quote from a War Office memorandum. It says:
The Army Council has decided that in view of the extreme importance of the Territorial Army in future plans for defence, Territorial Army requirements should, in principle, be accorded the highest priority until further notice.
I think that is an indication of the seriousness with which we in the War Office view the building up of the Territorial Army. There, again, as in the case of equipment, there will at some have to be a big building programme in order properly to accommodate the Territorial Army.
I will now come to the matter of finance. In spite of what the right hon. Member for West Bristol advised me to do in relation to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I can assure him that my right hon. Friend and I get on very well together when I make my demands on him for the Army. Let me give a practical illustration of how well we get


on together in that respect. One or two hon. Members, and particularly, I think, the hon. and gallant Member for Peters-field (Sir G. Jeffreys), referred approvingly to what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor had done in regard to making training bounties and training allowances free of tax. I give my right hon. Friend full marks for that, but I hope the Committee will concede a few to me, because it was at my instigation that he did it.

Mr. Stanley: Surely, that was done originally in response to an Amendment put down from this side?

Mr. Bellenger: That is not entirely true. It may be that hon. Members opposite cashed in at the right moment, but the fact remains that negotiations had been going on for some time before that Amendment was placed on the Order Paper. Indeed, a somewhat similar Amendment was placed on the Order Paper by this side. Do not let any of us claim credit for these things, but let us simply say "Thank you" to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor when he gives them. With regard to lodging allowances and travelling allowances, a scheme for trying to solve these difficulties has been prepared in the War Office, and we are now discussing that with the Territorial Army associations.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Does that include entertainment?

Mr. Bellenger: I would not like to say offhand. We are discussing so many of these things in the War Office and outside. I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman will readily understand that with the main task in the last two years of reducing the Army and its organisation, some time must elapse before we can get the new Army going; that refers to both the Regular and the Territorial Armies.
There is no doubt that the training which we shall give in the annual camps—and, by the way, there will be hardly any of the ordinary annual camps this year—will necessitate a certain amount of sacrifice on the part of the members of the Territorial Army. I think before the war a good deal was done by some employers to assist their men who were members of the Territorial Army to take a period off for training in addition to their paid leave. We have had this matter

under consideration for some time. Indeed, it was the intention of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, as I had asked him to do it himself personally, to make an announcement to the Committee on that very issue, but, for certain reasons, into which there is no need to go now, the Prime Minister is not able to be here tonight to make this statement, and, if the Committee will permit me, I should like to read the statement he has asked me to make. May I say, in passing, to one hon. Member, who mentioned the absence of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence, that he is taking a well-earned holiday in preparation for the strenuous times which are, no doubt, ahead of him, and that is the reason he is not here tonight.
This is the statement which my right hon. Friend was to have made:
The early building-up of the reconstituted voluntary reserve and Auxiliary Forces is of the greatest importance. These Forces have a vital part to play in the defences of this country: some are in the front line of those defences; the rest provide the first line of reinforcements behind the Regular Services. In addition, particularly in the case of the Territorial Army, they must be ready to play a most important part in the training of the large numbers of National Service men who will be completing their one year's full time training and entering the Reserves from the end of 5949 onward. I wish to emphasise, therefore, that the National Service Act does not in any way remove the need for voluntary service in the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces and the Government are anxious to ensure that no obstacle is placed in the way of those who are willing to undertake it.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour has to this end recently consulted both sides of industry through the medium of the National Joint Advisory Council on this question of leave for annual camps. The position of the National Service man in this respect is, of course, safeguarded by the terms of Section 54 of the National Service Act. I am glad to say that the National Joint Advisory Council endorsed the principle that volunteer members of the non-Regular Forces should not be compelled to forego their holidays either in whole or in part for the period of summer camp which should, unless they wish otherwise, be additional to their normal annual leave.
I am now coming to the part referring to the leave which His Majesty's Government are themselves prepared to give:
The Government cordially approve this principle and hope that it will be generally applied. The British Employers' Confederation has undertaken to bring the matter to the notice of employers' organisations throughout the country.


That, at any rate, in part, I think, will meet the point made by the hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield.
So far as the Civil Service is concerned, the Government, for their part, propose to reintroduce the arrangements which obtained before the war, subject to such adjustments as may be necessary to meet changed circumstances. In general, civil servants who volunteer for service in the Auxiliary Forces and attend an annual training camp will, if their normal entitlement of leave is three weeks or lees, be granted the full fortnight required for annual camp as additional paid leave. Those with a higher leave entitlement will be allowed one week's additional paid leave for annual camp and will be free to choose whether the second week should count as unpaid leave additional to their normal entitlement or as part of their normal leave with pay. They will, of course, in common with other members of these Forces receive Service pay for the full period of camp in any case.
That, I think, ought to convince the Committee of the earnestness of the Government's intentions, and I only hope that employers of labour outside will follow what I believe all hon. Members will agree is an excellent example set by His Majesty's Government in this respect.

Mr. S. Shephard: While the right hon. Gentleman is on that subject, could he say what is to happen with regard to nationalised industries?

Mr. Bellenger: I could not say precisely at the present moment, but I should naturally think it would follow, in view of the appeal made by the Government to employers of labour generally, that nationalised industries will set also the very good example the Government have set for their own servants.

Mr. Shephard: But is it not a fact that the National Coal Board have refused permission for any of their employees to join the Territorial Forces?

Mr. Bellenger: I should not like to answer that offhand at the moment. What I am prepared to say is this. I am prepared to answer a question on, that, but I am dealing with the general subject at the moment, and I should not like to discuss that in detail. In relation to Northern Ireland, recruiting has not started yet. It is due to start on 1st September for those units ready to receive recruits.
Let me come to one more matter. If I have not answered in these general remarks all the points put by individual hon. Members, I am sorry; but time will

not permit me; and I shall endeavour on another occasion, either by personal letter or conversation, to try to satisfy individual points that have been made. With regard to cadets, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence has made a statement to the House recently, and at the present moment, of course, there are negotiations going on for—I do not know whether "amalgamation" is the right word—joining up or linking up all three cadet Forces. As soon as that has been achieved, then it will follow that there will be much closer linking up—or "marrying" as one hon. Gentleman referred to it—with the Territorial Army. But I am bound to say that we do not desire that any cadet unit should sever its association with any particular regiment or battalion that it has had hitherto with any Regular battalion. But there will be closer linking up between county organisations of the cadet Forces and the county Territorial associations. We have given instructions that permanent staff instructors shall give as much time as possible to the cadets, particularly in this interim period, when they will not be fully occupied with the Territorial Army because the Territorial Army recruits will not be there.
There is one other thing which I should like to mention—a small point but I think one of some significance. Before the war, in 1938, a silver badge was approved for wear on the lapels of jackets by Territorials when in civilian clothes. We are now considering whether it will not be possible to reintroduce that badge for volunteer Territorials. We think it would be welcome amongst those who join the Territorial Army voluntarily, and we are now considering it.
In conclusion, I hope that, not only as a result of this Debate but of the keenness and enthusiasm which has been shown by hon. Members in all parts of the Committee, they will come forward to help us at the War Office in various ways and at every opportunity to recruit volunteers for the Territorial Army. I believe we shall get it in readiness for 1950 when we shall badly need it for the National Service men.

It being Ten o'Clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

GREENWICH HOSPITAL AND TRAVERS' FOUNDATION

The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. John Dugdale): I beg to move,
That the Statement of the Estimated Income and Expenditure of Greenwich Hospital and Travers' Foundation for the year ending on 31st March, 1948, which was presented on 6th June, be approved.
In acordance with general custom I move this Motion formally.

10.1 p.m.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: I am sure it would be convenient for the House if we follow the usual procedure in discussing the Greenwich Hospital Estimates, by asking our questions first, so that the Financial Secretary may reply to them at the end of the Debate. I see that the income for 1947–1948 is estimated to be down on the last year by £1,715. The revenue from the estates is down, especially in Northern England—by over 3,000—and the royalties from mines show a considerable drop, of nearly £5,000 from the royalties of last year. I wonder if the Financial Secretary can tell me from what mines these royalties come. Presumably they are not from coal mines. But whatever they are, I am told to tip him the wink that it might be very wise to keep his weather eye upon the Ministry of Town and Country Planning and his colleagues there, in case royalties from mines which are not coal mines drop still further in the coming year.
I cannot help feeling that the general income will fall still further in future years. So much of the Greenwich Hospital income comes from estates and capital investments, and the Greenwich Hospital will be hard hit by conversion schemes, and the estates are likely to call for considerably greater expenditure in the near future. I think it is common knowledge that estate repairs are being held up all over the country at the moment owing to the fact that there is a shortage of labour and materials. When these become more plentiful I am sure Greenwich Hospital will show a very considerable increase in the repair account on its estates throughout the country. Therefore, the very small estimated surplus of £874 this year, compared with £1,500 surplus for last year, may well turn to a deficit. We should like to know how the Financial Secretary is preparing

to face that likelihood. When we come to the expenditure side, we find that that is estimated to be up during the coming year by £12,413. I think hon. Members in all quarters of the House will be glad to see that the Greenwich Hospital pensions to seamen have been increased by nearly £11,000. Equally, we welcome wholeheartedly the fact that the headquarters' administration of the whole foundation is to cost less.
I now turn to the Royal Hospital school at Holbrook, which is usually the main subject of Debate on this occasion. I am sorry not to see the hon. and gallant Member for East Hull (Commander Pursey) in his place. I will do my best to deputise for him. Those of us who have already heard the news of the setting up of a committee of management for Holbrook, with two hon. Members of this House on the committee welcome it very much. I am sure that the committee of management will rifle wisely, but I think it very necessary that they should rule quickly. I wonder if the Financial Secretary could say whether, when they have made their findings, they will issue a report, and whether the report will come before us in this House? I realise, of course, that so far their time has been short, but I hope that when the report is issued we may have it as quickly as possible. I think there is a real need for urgency so far as Holbrook is concerned. On page five of the Estimates we see that the number of boys was down to 540 for 1945–1946. Can the Financial Secretary hold out any hope to the House that there may be an increase during the year 1946–1947. The average cost per boy runs higher, at £173 5s., than ever before, and is, in fact, double what the cost was in 1939. Can we be told what steps the Admiralty are taking to reverse this trend of fewer boys and higher costs?
I would ask the House to compare the higher cost at Holbrook with the grant shown, in page 4, of £1,500 in respect of education of children of officers. This is anyhow far too low but, with the increased promotion of officers from the lower deck, that sum will become still more inadequate. As the Reade Foundation is held by the Admiralty for the benefit of Greenwich Hospital as a whole and not for Holbrook only, cannot some of that income he transferred to some of these other purposes? So far as the boys of Holbrook are concerned, we should like to


know whether the Financial Secretary has anything to report on the number going from Holbrook to training ships, and whether that is satisfactory. In fact, we should be grateful to him for any information he can give us about this important school, which is one of the main sources on which the country relies for recruitment of the best men for the Royal Navy. I hope that we may have a chance of a wider Debate on Holbrook once the committee of management have had time to make their findings, and have had experience of the general running of the schools.

10.7 p.m.

Major Bruce: I should like to ask the Parliamentary and Financial Secretary whether the pensions paid out to seamen and marines and officers are paid out of the funds of Greenwich Hospital, or whether they are paid out of Government sources, subject to a Vote of this House. I ask that because there is a taxation difficulty which arises. If they are not paid out of the Greenwich Hospital funds, I should like to know how they are paid, because on looking through the income and expenditure sides of the accounts, I can find no grant from the Government, other than the Parliamentary grant of £4,000, which has been made for some hundreds of years, and arises from the 6d. pension that used to be paid to the mercantile marines. Apart from that, I can see no Government grant which has to be voted. The reason for asking this question is, as I say, because of taxation difficulties. I have been making inquiries of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and he informs me that Greenwich Hospital pensions are now subject to Income Tax on the grounds that they are no longer paid from Greenwich Hospital funds. Perhaps I may quote from the statement he makes, because of its importance. In a letter dated 17th July, he says:
In the case of the Navy, however, the age pensions were granted under the Greenwich Hospital Act, 1865, and were formerly paid out of Greenwich Hospital funds, to which a contribution was made from Navy funds. In these circumstances, they did not fall within the category of pensions payable out of the public revenue, and when the question of their liability came under review some years ago, it had to be admitted that there was no rule of the Income Tax Acts under which liability to tax was imposed upon them. It was decided, however, some time ago that the Navy age pensions should in future be

paid from Navy funds; as a result of this change they are now charged to tax like Army and Air Force age pensions.
From that it would appear that the present pensions, which are stated in detail on page 4, that is to say, £30,000 granted to seamen and marines, and £7,810 granted to officers, are probably liable to tax whereas, in fact, they should not he liable. I ask the hon. Gentleman—if he affirms, as I think he is bound to do, that these pensions are paid out of hospital funds—if he will convey these sentiments to the Financial Secretary of the Treasury, and ask that in future these pensions should not be subject to tax. If it is possible, I would like him to instruct the Financial Secretary to see that those claims are admitted for repayments where tax has been deducted in error.

10.11 p.m.

Commander Maitland: I think f ought to start by formally declaring my interest in this matter as both I and the hon. Member for South Cardiff (Mr. Callaghan) have been recently appointed to the committee which is doing its best to manage Holbrook Hospital. I ought to tell the House that the unanimity on that committee is almost indecent for an inter-party committee, but perhaps that is because it has been in action for such a short time. I ought also to say that I hope the House will not criticise us too strongly at the moment, because we realise that there is a great deal to do and we are endeavouring to do it. For those reasons, I do not propose to talk about the school tonight, but to say a few words on the general report which has been presented to the House.
The first thing that anybody who looks at this report, or any financial report of this type, wants to know is how much of the income is being used for the purposes which, presumably, it was intended by its providers it should be used. That question deserves close scrutiny, because the gross amount is £205,000 per annum, including the Reade Foundation Trust income which, obviously, can be put in as Greenwich Hospital income. Capitalised, the £205,000 per annum amounts to a large sum, about £6,750,000. For that, pensions are being paid at the rate of £55,000 per annum, and 540 boys are being educated. I do not think that that is very good value for money, and I think the House should look into this question, not now but perhaps in the future, to see


whether that money is being administered as economically as possible.
I want to refer to what might be described as "transferability" inside the Greenwich Fund. The Reade bequest produces an income of something over £16,000, and there is this very small amount of money towards the education of officers' sons. I would like to know whether that money can be transferred? Can a grant be made towards officers' sons, and daughters too, who are deserving cases? I would like to know who authorises the grant, and also the exchange from one part of the fund to another. I hope the Parliamentary and Financial Secretary may find it possible to reply to these questions tonight.

10.15 p.m.

Captain Marsden: We are asked tonight to pass these estimates. I hope that the First Lord and the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty have carefully examined them, because I have a feeling that many of these estimates are made out by civil servants and are passed on without examination.

The Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. John Dugdale): indicated dissent.

Captain Marsden: I am glad to see that the hon. Gentleman shakes his head, which makes it easier for him to answer my questions. Are we making sufficient of the assets of Greenwich Hospital? I would draw attention to two—the rents of the property, including market premises and tolls in Greenwich—£16,100. I do not know anything about them, but I do know something about the next item—rent of Greenwich Hospital buildings lent for the purposes of the Royal Naval College, £10,000. This is a magnificent block of buildings between Greenwich Park and the Observatory on the bank of the Thames. The present buildings were constructed by Sir Christopher Wren, and include in them the old Painted Hall, now the mess. There is nothing to beat them anywhere. It was previously the residence of royalty, and practically every serving executive officer has passed through Greenwich. It is a place of great memories; and £10,000 is not enough, although it may have been years ago. Is that sum based on the

yearly rental, and is the sum fixed every year or for a long period? If there is a long contract, nothing can be done, but if any opportunity comes for an increase, I think it should be taken. On page 2, hon. Members will observe
Greenwich Hospital pensions to seamen and marines (including Greenwich Hospital Canada pensions), pensions to widows and education of children."—
are being increased by £10,000—a very laudable object. No one would give that more support than I would, but where do the poor officers come in? Not another bean; not another penny. They get the same amount as before:
Greenwich Hospital pensions to officers and grants towards the education of children (including Greenwich Hospital Canada educational grants)"—
£10,000 the lot. What a miserable sum. I am confident that if the Royal Naval College buildings were put up to tender in the open market that £10,000 would be more in the nature of £30,000, with greater benefit to the pensions of officers. I hope that the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty will tell us how that £10,000 is arrived at, how often it is looked over, and that when the next opportunity comes a far greater rent will be demanded and given to the officers.

10.18 p.m.

Mr. John Dugdale: I am a little confused about the point raised by the hon. Member for Chertsey (Captain Marsden). He talked about Greenwich Hospital and its beautiful building. Greenwich Hospital does not now house the school. The school is now in Suffolk where it has its own admirable buildings. He raised the point which was also raised by the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas), as to whether or not pensions for dependants of officers should be increased. I think that it is a point of substance because I realise that prices have risen and that if pensions for ratings are to be increased correspondingly, there is no moral justification why the pensions for the dependants of officers should not also be considered. I am perfectly willing to consider that, but I cannot say more at the moment.
I come to the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for North Portsmouth (Major Bruce). He asked whether pensions were payable from Greenwich Hospital funds or Naval funds


and whether they were taxable or not. They are paid out of trust funds and they are not taxable. The hon. Member for Hereford asked me a number of questions on where we got our income from and in particular he was instancing the income from royalties. He may be interested to know that the royalties come from zinc and lead mines at Nenthead in Cumberland, which are run by a Belgian company, the Vieille Montagne. It is a rather obscure and curious point, but it is so. That company run the mines for us and they pay us royalties for so doing. The hon. Member was concerned that we were not getting perhaps all the income that we could. He thought that we might reinvest some of it and in some manner increase it. We are only too anxious to do this wherever possible. In fact, we are looking closely at our source of income, and if we find securities which can be sold with benefit and exchanged for some other form of security, we shall do so. We have in fact made certain investments. We buy land and sell securities, or else we sell land and buy securities.
Then there was the question of Holbrook. Hon. Members will see that there is an increase of £1,000 a year in the expenditure total, and some people may ask why that is so. As regards the question of cost per boy, I can assure hon. Members that we are going to appoint a bursar. We have a large number of applications and we hope to secure a bursar of such excellence that he will be able to effect considerable economies in the running of the school. I cannot say more than that. The reasons for the increase this year have been largely due to factors outside our power. The rates have increased and wages have increased. It is not because more people are employed but because of the increased rate of wages. There is one point where we are directly responsible and that is in regard to the pay and allowances. We intend to pay £100 per annum allowance for the ten housemasters, because we want to attract the best possible type of men.
The hon. Member for Hereford asked a question about the number of boys. I am glad to say that the number of boys is, in fact, rising, though the rise is small. Last year there were 553 boys;

this year we have 571, and I hope before long we will pass the 600 mark. In this connection there is one matter I should like to mention, and it is that at present our medical standard is very high. It is the standard based on that for boys due to enter the Royal Navy. Naturally, not all our boys can enter the Navy, and it is for consideration whether, in fact, we could somewhat lower that medical standard and admit slightly more boys. Fourteen out of 75 who apply to enter Holbrook failed on medical grounds, and some of them may have failed because the standard was too high. We are considering whether we cannot lower the standard slightly.
As I told hon. Members last year the advisory committee was going to he reformed and we have a management committee of which I am chairman and of which the hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland) and the hon. Member for South Cardiff (Mr. Callaghan) are both members. Knowing both these hon. Members we can expect great things from them in the future, and we hope to see considerable improvement in the school before long. The school has been through a difficult period, but I think it is definitely on the up grade. As I say, more boys are entering and 57 per cent. of those who left last year went into the Navy and I hope that that percentage may even go up. We do, in fact, now supply a considerable number of boys for our training ships.
In my general capacity as Parliamentary Secretary, I have been not only to the centres, but also to the training establishments to which those boys go. I have seen the success which they have at the training establishments where they mix in with all the other boys and are doing exceedingly well. For the time being, the present deputy headmaster is acting as headmaster, and I should like to pay my tribute to the excellence of the work he has performed during his short tenure of office. In due course we shall, of course, have to choose a headmaster, and I hope that before I report to the House again we may in fact have appointed one, and that I shall he able to report even further progress. With those few words, I hope that the House will agree to these Estimates which I think show a satisfactory state of affairs

Commander Maitland: Would the hon. Gentleman answer a specific question? Can the Reade Bequest be used for other objects than Holbrook, and also who has the power to decide whether new allocations of this character will be made?

Mr. Du£dale: With permission, I will answer that question, which I am very sorry that I overlooked. It can in fact be transferred on the authority of myself acting for the Board of Admiralty.

Resolved:
That the Statement of the Estimated Income and Expenditure of Greenwich Hospital and Travers' Foundation for the year ending on 31st March, 1948, which was presented on 6th June, be approved.

HOLIDAY RESORTS (DEVELOPMENT)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Simmons.]

10.27 p.m.

Mr. William Teeling: I am glad to be able to raise this question of home holiday resorts, partly because the season of the year is now about to reach the main holiday period, partly because of the very worrying condition of holiday resorts at the present moment, and partly because many of my friends and I myself feel that the new Tourist and Holiday Board which was announced as having been formed in April, does not seem to be giving any definite signs of its existence so far as we are concerned.
It will be remembered that as far back as 30th October last year, Lord Inman put in his report which, it was admitted by Lord Hall in another place, was a private report and therefore could not be published. As a result, Lord Hacking and Lord Cranborne both pressed very strongly that if Lord Inman's report could not be published, at least a White Paper might be issued. At the time Lord Hall said that that was quite a good idea, but he was not prepared to say definitely whether or not it could be produced. In March the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Blackpool (Brigadier Low) put a Question in the House and was answered by the Government to the effect that it was not yet the appropriate time to produce such a White Paper. It is now the feeling of a very

large number of holiday resorts and of the local councils and people concerned with them that some such White Paper should be produced. All we know is that Lord Inman reported privately, and that as a result a Board was set up.
This Board was to be divided into four. There was to be a travel side, a home holidays side, a hotel side, and a catering side. We already had in this country a perfectly good Travel Association, with which I think everybody has been completely satisfied, and which raised its funds partly from the Government, but equally from some local authorities. Its chairman, Lord Hacking, has worked entirely voluntarily, without any pay whatever. There are also many catering organisations and hotel organisations functioning with great efficiency. The Government decided early in the year that an official Board must be started up in order to deal with the pressing question of holidays for the people in this country and from outside.
I would be the last person to disagree on the pressing nature of this question. Something like 10 million people now receive holidays with pay under Statutory Orders and otherwise. Another five million, for the first time, are to go on holiday with pay. With their families, this means a colossal number of people. Where are they to go and how are they to spend their holidays? This is the first year in which they will have holidays with pay. Yet the fact remains that in most of the recognised holiday resorts at the present moment there is a very definite slump. Hotels are only half full. People who do come—and there are not as many as was expected—are bringing with them everything they possibly can, such as food, and are going back without spending any money. It can, of course, be put down to a lack of money to spend, and also to a definite fear on people's part as to what is going to be the future, and a feeling they should preserve their money. That is quite possible. But there is a very definite slump.
There has been a tremendous amount of publicity on staggered holidays, asking everybody to try if possible to go for holidays at a season when it is not the peak. An area like my constituency, which has one of the best railway services in the country for getting people to and from London, and other towns like it on


the sea coast, are not getting anything like the number of people to be expected, and in fact staggered holidays have so far been a complete failure. The only time our hotels are fully packed is during the usual holidays season from the middle of July to the end of August.
I hope that tonight we shall get some form of interim report from the Parliamentary Secretary as to what is being done by this wonderful new organisation. All we know about it is that, in addition to the former organisations, we have a series of new boards. At the head of them is Sir Alexander Maxwell, who is taking complete charge of what is recognised as a vitally important organisation for holidays and travel within this country and equally, a vital necessity for bringing dollars and other exchange to this country from abroad. Anybody who thinks seriously knows this is a whole-time job, and yet Sir Alexander Maxwell still remains in charge of the Tobacco Control. And we have had a pretty serious tobacco crisis during the last few weeks. Not so very long ago an important official connected with the travel side asked to see Sir Alexander Maxwell to discuss some problems and he was informed by Sir Alexander, "My dear fellow, do you realise there is a tobacco crisis on at this moment? I simply have not the time to discuss this matter with you now." I do not know, personally, whether Sir Alexander is or is not a paid official.
One of the tragedies since this Government came into office is the secrecy with regard to who are paid and what they are paid. We do not know at present whether Sir Alexander is paid as Tobacco Controller or as head of the Tourist Board. We do not know if he is paid in both capacities, or in neither. I believe that it is possible he is doing it voluntarily; I have heard that suggested. But the fact is that he is holding an appointment, and I am willing to bet that it is a job which has money set aside for it. I have heard it suggested that the Tobacco Controller can get £4,500 a year, and equally there is money for the head of this Board to get £3,000. Both of these jobs should be full-time appointments, and it is not right that one person should be put in charge of both of them. This is especially the case when we are having all this trouble over tobacco, and when our holiday resorts are

in a pretty messy condition from the point of view of development.
There is much that ought to have been done. Would it not be possible to have somebody in control who could give full-time control, whether he was paid or not, and who would not then feel that he could not give time to one job because there was another to be done. There is the hotel side, the catering side, and the home holidays side, and we should like to know what is being done to develop the hotel and holiday industry as a whole for this country. Fifteen million people are waiting for their holidays, and we should like to know what is being done? Recently I asked two Questions in the House of the Minister of Food. In the one case he replied that only one-third of to per cent. of the rationed food of this country goes to the catering industry. I asked also if it would be possible in my own constituency of Brighton to extend from 10 p.m. to midnight the opening hours of catering establishments. I can state that everything had been arranged locally from the labour point of view, and staffs were being organised to work on a shift system. But the Minister of Food said that that could not be done, except in London. Why? The more we go into this question of holidays, the more do we find that the Ministry of Food and the Ministry of Fuel and Power, the Foreign Office and the Treasury, seems to be at loggerheads about it. We feel that there is no leadership and no control.
What is being done with regard to hotel repairs? We were told that a survey was to be made covering the whole of the country, and that, it must be agreed, would be a most useful thing. Has that survey been made? Has a start been made on it? Can the hon. Gentleman tell us anything about it? We were also told that official holiday camps were to be established. Are they to be more of Butlin's holidays camps, or something of a different sort? It may well be that they are to be the same as Butlin's, because they are excellent ones. If not, why is Mr. Butlin on the Committee? Are they to be in competition with his own? If so why put him on the board? I understand from the newspapers that one of these camps was to be started yesterday on the Cumberland coast on the site of a former naval camp, H.M.S. "Macaw," and was to be taken over by an organisation known as Family Holidays, Ltd.


What is known of this; has it been filled to the brim straight away? Can we have some information about this camp?
Then I come to the question of what is to be the position of the local authorities with regard to the financing of publicity. This is something which applies particularly when one is concerned with the question of travel from abroad. We have heard recently—and rightly, too—a tremendous amount about the need for conserving and getting dollars and foreign exchange. We have been told that something like 100 million pounds can come in, and that 25 million can come in this year. Is there any hope of this? Do the Government anticipate that people will come into this country from abroad in very large numbers? I cannot see these foreigners pouring into this country at the present time, and the more I go abroad, the less I see of any organisation to bring them over. The Tourist Association is doing the best it can, but it does not now know from where the money is to come. It knows nothing at all about that, or about what is to be its future. All we are told is that this organisation is to go on for two years, and that after that it ought to be self-supporting. In what way is it to be done? Can we be given some figures?
We can gain dollars from those who come to this country from America. What is being done to bring Americans over? I will give the House two examples of what is happening. One American citizen wishing to come to this country went to our consulate in New York and asked if he could have a visa, saying that he wanted to come over to see friends in London whom he had not seen since before the war. He was asked for how long he wanted a visa. He said he wanted it for a month. Then this man, who was coming from America, and would spend dollars here, was asked if he could not get his visit over in less than a month. He replied that he supposed that he could, but asked why he should do so, and he was told, "It is a question of food and fuel; our Food and Fuel Ministries do not want you to go over." He pointed out that while he would have to spend something on food and fuel, he would also spend on other things, and that that money we could spend on more food and on plans to get more Americans to come into the country. In the case

of another American who wanted to come over, to this country from Europe, and who went to a consulate in Italy, he was told that they could not get a definite ruling from London—there seemed to be such rows going on between the different departments; the Treasury wanted to get Americans over, the immigration officers of the Foreign Office were keen, and the Customs "did not mind as long as they could catch us for duty on something"; but the Fuel and Food Ministries were doing everything in their power to stop them. The result was that they were not getting the encouragement they should be getting.
I suggest that, instead of just concentrating on starting these four boards and asking them to move into Queen's House, St. James's Street, at great expense, something practical should be done to bring people here from abroad. I heard the other day that there was a question of setting up a Welsh Board. During the last few days, in Paris I ran into some people from Brittany who were most anxious to come to Wales. But Eire seems to have taken hold of the idea of getting people to go to Ireland from Brittany to study Celtic matters instead of going to Wales.
It is for the purpose of trying to get some kind of guidance on how local authorities are to spend their money, whether they are to get proper advertising abroad, who is really in control, whether that person is a full-time official or not, and how far the local authorities are going to be helped, that I have raised this question tonight.

10.44 p.m.

Mr. Edward Evans: I rise specifically to call attention to the case of those places on the East Coast which are in particular need of rehabilitation and help. There are only two points that I will make at this late hour. One is that it is essential for the East Coast resorts to have a more extended season. The climatic conditions there make impossible the full enjoyment of holidays after the summer season, but there is a period at the beginning and end which could be widely extended as a holiday period. The other point I want to make is that I hope the Minister will have the ear of the Minister of Transport on the matter of the terrible disability which the East Coast suffers in respect of travelling facilities. For years and years we have


suffered from lack of decent communications not only with London, but with the Midlands and the North.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I would like to add a point to what has been said by the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Teeling). The position of Weston-super-Mare is, I appreciate, rather different from that of Brighton, but we have one thing in common—we all realise that we really cannot get anything going on the working out of staggered hours, until we are allowed to advertise the different facilities available at different times of the year. The local authorities should be allowed to spend a higher proportion of the rates than at present in making these matters known. That is a very crucial question. Until they are allowed to spend on this a higher proportion of the rates than they have been allowed to spend in the past, people will not really understand what they can do outside the season in these holiday resorts.

10.16 p.m.

Mr. Keeling: I would like to reinforce what my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton (Mr. Teeling) said about the conflict between Government Departments. Four months ago, the Minister of Fuel and Power was asked whether he would give extra petrol to motorists bringing their cars to this country. I pointed out that the net gain from American tourists in dollars would be very substantial, but the Minister of Fuel and Power said that it was purely hypothetical, and refused to make any extra grant. Only a few days ago the Board of Trade agreed to make a grant of extra petrol. A conflict that has been going on for four months, the Board of Trade and the Treasury have at last won, but even now the position is exceedingly unsatisfactory. The Board of Trade will only grant sufficient petrol to a tourist to go to the furthest point in a direct line and then back. That does not enable the English tourist industry to compete with the French tourist industry. In France a motorist can get up to 132 gallons of petrol for a three months' visit. The tourist to England is granted enough to take him to his furthest point and back. That is entirely inadequate.

10.47 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Belcher): I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Teeling), who introduced this debate, both for the very reasoned case he put forward and for his courtesy, which I very much appreciate, in letting me know in advance some of the points he was going to raise, always, I think, a very useful thing to do on an Adjournment Debate, when necessarily the Minister has to condense his speech into a very short time. On the matter of petrol, which was raised by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling), we have, of course, recognised the necessity for doing something. That accounts for the announcement which I made recently about this. Extra petrol is being granted to tourists, it must be remembered, in addition to the basic ration which they may draw in this country. They have not only the limited amount to take them to their furthest point and back.
As far as advertising is concerned, I must confess that it is a new point to me, and I assure the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing), that it will be taken up to see if anything can be done. It involves a matter of rates and that, presumably, is a matter for the Minister of Health. Similarly, on the matter of motor transport on the East Coast mentioned by the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. E. Evans), I will see that his remarks are laid before the Minister of Transport to see whether anything can be done about that.
The hon. Member for Brighton suggested in his opening remarks that there might be some good reason for the publication of a White Paper on the tourist industry. Frankly, I cannot see that it is a fit subject for a White Paper. I hope that some of the things that I shall mention will indicate the sort of thing that is being done. What is likely to happen in the future I would not like to forecast at present. The hon. Member, in addition to suggesting the necessity for a White Paper on this subject, referred to existing organisations concerning themselves with the organisation of the tourist trade of the country. Those organisations are still there. The Tourist Board has the advantage of the services of the Travel Association which is still in


being and doing its work, and we are all very grateful to the Travel Association and the other associations for the very good work they have done. But it is precisely because it is important and urgent that we should attract the maximum number of visitors, particularly from the hard currency areas, and because we have felt also that we must make it possible for our own people, with their new-found leisure, to enjoy that leisure, that we have considered that there was room for a new, all-embracing organisation to tackle this job in a national sense.
The hon. Member referred to the various divisions of this Board. He praised the work of the Travel Association. As a matter of fact, so far as the Tourist Division is concerned, it is precisely the Travel Association which has acted as Travel Division. Lord Hacking, of the Travel Association, is chairman of the division. Then we have the Catering Division, and the chairman of the Catering Committee is Mr. Harry Salmon, of Messrs. J. Lyons and Co I think hon. Members will agree that we were well advised to go to Messrs. Lyons for information about catering. The job of this division is to foster the development of the catering industry in all sorts of ways—research, technical education, hygiene, and so on. We have a Hotels Division under the chairmanship of Mr F. G. Hole, of the London Midland and Scottish Railway Hotels, a man who, I think everybody will agree, is well qualified by his experience. We have a Home Holidays Division under the chairmanship of Mr. E. W. Wimble, of the Workers' Travel Association, who, I know, is well fitted to guide the activities of that Division.
I find it difficult to understand what is becoming almost a general query about the position of Sir Alexander Maxwell. It is true that he was Tobacco Controller—and an extremely successful one too. It is true that he is still adviser to the Board of Trade on tobacco matters. He does not need to give all his time to the Board of Trade and tobacco matters: his services as adviser do not call for the expenditure of the whole of his time. We think it best when we appoint chairmen to the Tourist Board to appoint not full-time chairmen, but men of proved ability and experience

—and we are quite satisfied that he has this. After all, that is quite a normal practice in commercial life. One does not normally expect chairmen of businesses to be full-time men. One expects the managing director, or general manager, or technical staff, to be full-time people, but normally chairmen are not full-time: the fact that they have outside experience to bring into play may be an added advantage. The fact is that Sir Alexander Maxwell is able to devote sufficient time to the job. He has a staff—the four directors-general of the divisions, and a number of other officers.
I was asked about the salary. There is provision for a salary to be paid for the Chairman of the Tourist Board, but he prefers not to draw it. There are a number of men who, during and since the war, have given their services to their country. They are well provided for already, and see no point in drawing extra. Sir Alexander is one of these. Of course, he is covered so far as expenses are concerned.
One of the most important points made by the hon. Member was on the question of attracting visitors from the hard currency areas. I quite agree that that is most important. The Information Service of the Foreign Office has issued to all consular posts a great deal of information on all aspects of touring in this country. They have compiled a very informative leaflet, and this has had a wide distribution all over the United States of America. The Travel Association are playing their part and have published a first-class report, and are covering various countries by sending literature to steamship and airline offices, automobile clubs and so on. Consular officers and trade commissioners in all parts of the world are kept fully informed of what we are trying to do. There have been arguments—some in this House, some on the public platforms, and some in the Press—about what we should do in regard to encouraging foreign visitors to come to this country. There have been those who have said that, because we are short of food, because of transport difficulties and accommodation difficulties, we should not be pushing the tourist trade at this time. I believe that is altogether wrong. I believe that our American friends, and our Dominion and


our Colonial cousins, do not expect to come here and to find a land flowing with milk and honey. They are prepared to understand that our difficulties today result from our efforts during the war and my heart is gladdened when I read, as I did today in the "Evening Standard":
'Hotel services, in some cases, are better than in America. I shall tell our members that they need anticipate no difficulties in England.' So said Mr. Henry J. Brunnier, President of America's Automobile Association
All I hope is that every hon. Member and every man and woman in this country whose voice can be heard on this subject, will be directing attention to what we have to offer, rather than to what we have

not to offer. I believe this tourist traffic can be not only the means of bringing much-needed dollars to this country, but of increasing the understanding by ourselves of other people, and by other people of ourselves, and I welcome this Debate because it has enabled me to underline that.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Order made upon 13th November.

Adjourned accordingly at Three Minutes to Eleven o'Clock.